1921-02-21

[Stage Direction]
Financial Statement, covering the last fiscal year, of the Honorary Advisory Council for Scientific Industrial Research. -Right Hon. Sir George Foster.
Report of the Canadian Wheat Board for the season of 1920.-Right Hon. Sir George Foster.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order, First Reading of Bill No. 2 to Amend the Dominion Elections Act. (From the Senate) :
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: I desire that the first reading of this Bill be taken up, and in doing so I wish to make a statement to the House as to the purport of the Bill and .the necessity therefor. Under the amendment to the Canada Temperance Act, passed at the session before last, various provinces of the Dominion were enabled by the process of taking a plebiscite to decide whether or not certain provisions of that Act would become applicable to the province so deciding. If it became applicable, then the prevention of the importation of, and some other transactions in, liquor, making in effect total prohibition, became the law of that province. Under the Dominion Elections Act which passed last session there was a provision that in the event of any vote in any province taking place before the end of the year 1920, that vote should be held upon the then existing lists, which were compiled a year or so before, but that should the vote take place subsequent to the 31st December, then there should be a total revision of the lists for the purpose of the vote. It was the intention that polling for this purpose in the province of Ontario should take place on the 25th October, which was the day fixed for the vote in the three western Prairie Provinces and in Nova Scotia. Representations, however, were made to the Government from various organizations, including particularly' the Great War Veterans,

which established that should the vote be taken on the 25th October, or any date last year, it would result in the disfranchisement of very many thousands of men, principally returned soldiers. These men would be disfranchised because of the fact that when the list was compiled they had not returned. In other words some thirty thousand had returned after the compilation of the lists and before this vote could take place. Of this number, it was represented, a very large proportion would be in the province of Ontario, possibly one-half. Many thousands of others, at the time of the compilation of the lists, were in hospitals in Toronto, or elsewhere, and these, it was stated, would have dispersed to their homes in distant parts of the province and consequently could not be on the lists and so would be disfranchised. These considerations seemed to make it imperative indeed that the vote be postponed. We could not see how we could justify allowing a vote to take place which would be so unsatisfactory as one taken on lists disfranchising so many of those who should really be entitled to have a voice. The difficulty that then confronted us was this: Should the vote be postponed to a date immediately succeeding the New Year, or any date in the New Year, it would necessitate a revision of the entire Ontario lists merely for the purposes of this vote, whereas, as a matter of fact, in the rural districts of Ontario, under the statute, a voter is enabled to swear his name on the voters' lists, and consequently the necessity for revision in those districts was very slight, if indeed it existed at all. The practical difficulty, then, in the way of the Government was that it would cost the Treasury of the country, for a complete revision of the Ontario lists, according to the figures submitted to us by the Chief Electoral Officer, Colonel Biggar, approximately $330,000 to $350,000. On being asked for an alternative plan Colonel Biggar suggested that if the vote were postponed to a date which would enable a Bill to pass this parliament designed to meet his viewpoint, there could be a revision in the cities and towns, and inasmuch as a voter could be sworn on in the rural districts, in his opinion, that would meet all the practical necessities of the case, and result in an expenditure only approximating $30,000, thereby saving the country an outlay of $300,000. That is the suggestion the Government accepted, and accordingly the vote

was fixed for the 18th of April of this year. This Bill has been prepared by Colonel Biggar for the purpose of enabling that revision to take place in cities and towns in Ontario at the cost that he estimates, and of saving the country the sum of approximately $300,000 that would otherwise be entailed. I have very briefly, and I hope clearly, stated to the House the objects of the measure. In a word they are these: To enable such revision to be made as meets the situation, gets rid of the injustice of a disfranchisement, and at the same time saves that wider general revision throughout all the rural districts which, under the present state of the law is not really necessary, but which the law actually calls for; and thereby to save the Treasury a sum of approximately $300,000. '


Mr. SPEAKER:: Perhaps I should poinl out that the motion for the first reading of a Senate Bill is not debatable, but in this instance, inasmuch as the first reading is, in effect, the introduction of the measure to this House, I felt it was due to members that a Prime Minister should have the right of making his explanation, hence the rule in that respect was relaxed. Should the leader of the Opposition or the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) desire to make- any remarks on the motion, I am quite sure the House will grant the same indulgence to them.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, I
think it is proper to direct your attention to the amendment to the Address that is before the House at the present time. My right hon. friend, in the first motion to be made by him as Prime Minister this session moved
That the Speech .of His Excellency the Governor General to both Houses of Parliament be taken into consideration on Tuesday next, and that this Order have precedence over all other business except the introduction of Bills, until disposed of.
He now comes forward with a second motion to defeat the purpose of the first. As I understand the motion which my right hon. friend has just made, it means the adjournment of the debate on the amendment expressing want of confidence in the administration, and taking up the consideration of a new measure. That raises a rather important consideration, it seems to me, to those of us on this Side of the House who have taken the position that the hon. gentlemen opposite are usurping power in presuming to continue to
occupy the Treasury Benches. We take the position that without the confidence of this House and of the country they are not entitled to introduce a hill or to spend a dollar; and unless my right hon. friend can show us some precedent for adjourning the debate on a motion of want of confidence in the Government to take up another matter, we would be justified I think in adhering to the position which we have taken from the outset, namely that the Government lacks the confidence of the country, and therefore is not entitled to proceed with any legislation. -
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are certainly anxious not to embarrass any section of the public in the matter of an expression of opinion on a question of public interest, and we are ready to do anything constitutionally possible to enable the people to have the benefit of such expression of opinion as may be in the public interest. It is unfortunate, however, that in our desire so to do we have to take steps to make good the limitations and defects of the Government. I might point out to my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) that if he had acted upon the suggestion which we on this side of the House made at the close of the last session of Parliament, and had summoned Parliament at an earlier date in the year-which I think would have made for the convenience of all hon. members-he would not now be pleading with Parliament for this opportunity to reverse his first motion and * to take up other business while we are engaged in what may be perhaps the most important debate which we shall have this session.
I might also point out to my right hon. friend that when the Dominion Elections Act was before Parliament last session we on this side called attention to the fact that so far as Ontario was concerned the Government was adopting a course which would lead to great expense in the preparation of lists, and we suggested that the municipal lists should be accepted as the basis in that province. Had that suggestion been accepted, my right hon. friend would not now be obliged to come along with his request.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly, Mr. Speaker, but I would point out to my right hon. friend that if our action on this side of the House in permitting the Government to proceed, even to further the public interest, were likely to be construed in any way as an evidence of lack of sincerity in the amendment which we have before the House, I

would not for a moment consent to consider his request. But I would say to him that if he can cite a precedent indicating wherein it would be proper to adjourn the debate in order to take up another matter, while a vote of confidence in the Government is being considered by Parliament, we will be prepared to consider such precedent and give him an answer perhaps to-morrow as to the position which the Opposition will take. I think I am justified in asking my right bon. friend to allow me an opportunity of conferring with my colleagues before I come to a conclusion regarding his exceptional request. If he is prepared to do that, I am prepared to say that we will if possible consider sympathetically any precedent he may cite which will enable the public to give expression to its views on any question of public interest at the least possible cost and with the least possible delay.


Arthur Meighen: I omitted to state,
when I addressed the House first, Mr. Speaker, that the will of Parliament on this Bill requires to be known within a reasonable time. There is time enough for Parliament to consider it, but there is not time for delay because the revision is called for before the 18th April; or if the will of Parliament should be that this Bill do not pass, then it is necessary to know still earlier, because in that event, should the plebiscite go on, the entire revision would take still more time.
I am not endeavouring to controvert my hon. friend, and to have the last word, as to the statement that if the municipal lists had been taken this Bill would not be necessary, for that is entirely aside from the mark. We have lists which would be a much closer basis than the municipal lists. It is the revision that takes time and expense, and it is unnecessary revision only that we are trying to avoid in order to effect a saving of $300,000.
I may say that I assume, and I think correctly, that first readings of bills do not require unanimous consent and do not come within the purview of the motion which I made: the second reading, of course, would, and there is no use having the first reading without the second.
Inasmuch as my hon. friend takes the stand which he has stated to the House- and I may say that he was good enough to advise me of it before the House met-I will ask only for the first reading to-day. Then I will give notice of such motion as may be necessary to enable the House to proceed with this Bill, notwithstanding the 
order which was passed, and which is the usual order at the opening of the House. In the meantime my hon. friend can come to such conclusion as he may deem advisable on the stand he should take. The blatter of precedent therefore need not be discussed now. I do not apprehend that I will have much 'difficulty on the point.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not understand the hon. the leader of the Opposition to press his point of order as to whether it is competent to move the first reading of this Bill. But the motion which was carried is, that the Address shall be considered and that that debate shall take precedence of all other business except the introduction of Bills. I think undoubtedly the first reading of a Senate Bill may be properly regarded as the introduction of a Bill, and therefore would come within the spirit at all events, of the Order of the House; and therefore it would be quite competent to give first reading to the Bill.
I would point out further that it is not necessary to delay the debate on the Address, for the reason that the motion is not debatable; when the Bill is given first reading, not further action can be taken on the measure, unless the House changes the Order which has been already made.
Mr. MEIGHEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2 to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
TRIBUTES TO DECEASED MEMBERS -THE LATE Mr. TOM G. WALLACE


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the House is called upon to lament the loss of one of our number by the hand of death. Yesterday morning there passed away Mr. Tom G. Wallace, member of Parliament for the electoral division of West York. Mr. Wallace was taken with a very severe illness immediately prior to the opening of this session-an illness to which he succumbed.
It is well known to all that Captain Wallace was a son of a former member of this House of much distinction, Mr. N. Clarke Wallace, who in his time was a member of the government. Captain Wallace himself served his country first in the capacity of a soldier in the South African war to which he went when only in his teens. His career as a soldier was marked by sincere devotion to duty in all capacities, however humble, and by a love of country that

has characterized every act of his life. Returning to Canada he contested a seat for this Parliament in the election of 1908 and was successful, and in the elections of 1911 and 1917 was again returned. His most marked characteristic as a member of this House was the degree of popularity and personal devotion which his character commanded. As a member of the House he devoted himself unstintedly to its work, with an entire thoughtlessness of self, a desire to help and advance others, and particularly a desire to advance legislation of the character that he was most interested in, such as went for the uplifting of Canadian national life. Captain Wallace enjoyed this distinction: that among all the members on this side of the House, where he was best known, no other member had a larger personal following, if I may use the term; no other could pass from us whose loss would be the subject of keener and more lasting regret. I came to Parliament with him. I myself shall very much miss his face here, and I am sure that all members of the House will share with me the unescapable and lasting regret that we shall know no more of his friendship, his companionship, and his service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to join with my right hon. friend in, and to associate this side of the House with, the tribute which he has paid to the memory of our late colleague and the extending of our sympathy to his relatives and friends. Like my right hon. friend, I entered Parliament at the same time as the late Mr. Wallace, and have had the privilege, therefore, of a long personal acquaintance with him. Hon. members who have shared that privilege will, I am sure, feel that the Prime Minister has expressed sentiments which will be entertained generally among the members of this House.
My right hon. friend made reference to the circumstance that the father of the late Mr. Wallace was also a distinguished member of Parliament. That, perhaps, is deserving of more than passing mention. There is a tradition with regard to public service which is stronger, perhaps, in the Old World than it is in this, which unites families in a common devotion to their country. Mr. Wallace, by succeeding his father in the service of his country in Parliament and, jn addition, serving his country in the South African War, where he distinguished himself, maintained in a worthy manner this finest of family traditions. Let us hope that the example he set in this particular will prove an inspiration to the younger men of Canada. Mr. Wallace, though one of the older members of the House in point of service, was one of the youngest in point of years. I am sure we all feel that in his early death the country has lost not only a generous and chivalrous spirit, but one who; had he been spared, would have continued to render useful service to his country.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to associate myself with the right hon. leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition in the remarks they have made concerning the loss this House has sustained in the death of Captain Wallace. He was a much older member of this House than I am, but I had known of him before I came here and had known of the distinguished services rendered to his country by his father. All who have been associated with the work of this House will remember' the kindly greeting, the glad hand, the open spirit, that was characteristic of Captain Wallace. His taking away is an evidence of the shortness of the span of human life, but I am sure that his memory in the precincts of this building, and particularly in this Chamber, will be cherished to the end of their days by all who have been associated with him.
Let me say a word also in respect to the loss this House has sustained in another direction. Since the termination of our session last summer, the hand of Death has been heavy upon this Chamber: three other members distinguished in the House have also been called to the Great Eeyond. It was not my privilege to have had a very close acquaintance with the late Mr. Gladu, who represented Yamaska, but one was struck by the diligence of his efforts in the performance of his legislative duties. And he had also-no higher testimony can any man have-the respect and esteem of those who were associated with him.
Colonel McLeod was a well known figure in this House. In more fields than one he had rendered distinguished service to his country and his taking away in the very prime of his life came as a surprise and a shock to us all.
I was better acquainted with the late Mr. Sifton than I was with any of the others who have gone. Mr. Sifton's name was a household word in Western Canada. In many ways he rendered distinguished service to his country, not only in the

Legislature of the Northwest Territories, but on the Bench and in this House as well. It is not too much to say that Mr. Sifton's career on the Bench in Western Canada in the formative period of its development had a great deal to do with the establishment of law and order-and, more than that, Sir, with the respect for law and order which is inherent in British peoples. I recall very well a conversation I had with him upon one occasion. We were discussing the laws passed by our Dominion and Provincial legislative bodies, and how it not infrequently happened that laws were hastily passed, and, after the test of experience, found to be unsound. He made this observation: "Whether a law is a good law or a bad law, it should be rigidly enforced. If it is a good law, it will do good; if it is a bad law, the people will waken to the consequences of it. Above all we must have, in the development of this country with its cosmopolitan people, a respect for law and order; for only upon such a basis can we build up a true and solid society." These words struck me, Mr. Speaker, as being pregnant with wisdom. Mr. Sifton was not a "mixer," as the ordinary term is, but those more closely associated with him knew the value of his friendship. We can always look back upon his career as having been a distinguished one in the service of his country. Those who knew him best will miss him greatly; those who knew him less intimately will have the memory of the respect that he earned in all his associations in this House and in other fields of activity in Canada.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH -ADDRESS IN REPLY

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. James Mclsaac for an address to His Excellency, the Governor General, in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, resumed from Friday, February 18.
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: Mr. Speaker, the amendment which has been moved to the motion for an address illustrates two things: first, lack of courage on the part of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) ; second, the poverty of his political equipment. It had been heralded throughout this country that the leader of the Opposition had at last found his fighting spirit and that he was coming to this House with his batteries all massed and his artillery in order so that fMr, Crerar.]	*
he could lead an attack that would wipe this Government and this Parliament out of existence. After he has spoken for Some two hours, what do we find? We find that he has not one word to utter in condemnation of any legislation of this Parliament and that he has absolutely no policy to offer to the people of this country. In my opinion, a vote of want of confidence is and should be and, I think, has in history been based upon one of two things: first, the exposition of some policy which the mover thought it was in the public interest to adopt: second, the condemnation of some legislative acts of the Government. What do we find in this case? After addressing the House for about two hours, the leader of the Opposition admits that he has no policy and proves that he has no case against this Government. He simply talks, crying, as it were, on the outside of the citadel in the hope that the ramparts will fall down and he may be wafted into office. Who could imagine a Gladstone, or a Salisbury, or a Disraeli, asking any Parliament for a vote of want of confidence without having some policy to offer or some condemnation of the Government? What I have said exemplifies two things: first, lack of courage on the part of the leader of the Opposition, and second, lack of political equipment on his part. Stripped of all its verbiage, what does this mean? It means simply this, that if this debate is to be carried on as it should be, we have nothing left to debate but the fitness of the leader of the Opposition to occupy the position of first minister of Canada. God forbid that this party and this Government should lead this hon. member to his political doom through a path so tortuous and rocky as that. Rather would I throw the curtain of oblivion over him and leave him in peace; for I can assure him that when he goes to the country he will find plenty to contend against without that.
But, supposing this amendment should carry and this country should be precipitated into the throes of an election,
I should like the hon. member to say where he stands on the great question of taxation. Wh^t are his plans and projects for carrying and paying off the great debt which the war has placed upon this country? Has he any policy? If he has, he is entitled to place it before this Parliament. What is his policy regarding the great railway mixup which this country is in at the present time, and which is incidentally due to the party of which he is at present the

leader? What is his policy as regards repatriation of Canadian soldiers? What is his policy regarding pensions for those who were wounded in the battlefields of France? These are some of the things on which the hon. member should have stated his position before this House when he asked this House to vote a want of confidence in the present Government. What also, might I ask, is his policy regarding some of the things mentioned in the speech from the Throne? He has occupied the position of Minister of Labour in the Government of this country, and I should like to know, and the country would like to know, what his attitude is to-day on unemployment insurance. Unemployment is, to my mind, one of the great causes of unrest to-day; nothing is so conductive to unrest on the part of the labouring man as when he finds that his employment is wanting; that he has nothing laid by for his wife and family, and that poverty is more or less confronting him. In a country like Canada, where, by the nature of her climate, employment is more or less seasonal, this is one of the great problems that has been laid before Parliament during the past two years and one on which the leader of the Opposition is called upon to give an opinion. I hope the Minister of Labour may be successful in finding some solution for this problem and also for the question of old age pensions, mentioned in the speech from the Throne. Nothing is so sad in my experience than to see a man or a woman who has passed the earning point of life and who, through sickness or disaster, is faced with poverty. In Canada no man or woman has a right to be placed in that position. I do not agree with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that this is something to which the country should pay no attention. The aged and the poor are just claims upon-I was going to say charity, but it is not that-the Government and the people of this country. Many men and women have reached that state through no fault of their own, and it is the duty of every country to look after its citizens who have become impoverished through sickness or death or accident, and to see that they are not left in want in their old days.
Let us look for a moment at the official Opposition and see where they stand. I have stated that the leader of the Opposition has no policy to offer why we should vote this Government out and them in. Some one may say that they set a platform before the people in this country in 1919. That is quite true, but where do they stand now?
Shortly after that, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) through a paper which he owns, stated that platforms were made to get in on and not to stand on. Following that up he went to Peterborough where he told the people they could trust the Liberal party because they had failed for fifteen years to carry out their promises in relation to the tariff, and what they had done once they could do again. Another member of the Opposition stated that they had a platform and in that there were certain provisions for tariff revision, but he would have nothing done until he had gone once or twice before the people of Canada for their endorsation. What kind of a government would you have, if elected on issues like that? Then, the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMas-ter) who so often amuses this House has another theory; he has gone into the subterranean passages of time and there amidst the dust and cobwebs of antiquity he has got hold of that bundle of straw called free trade, and he hands that out to the people of this country in 1921 as a means for their national sustenance. These are some of the views held by hon. members who sit opposite us and who hope to be voted into power. The hon. member for Brome may speak for the county of Brome, but I doubt if he can speak for the province of Quebec. I am quite positive he cannot speak for Ontario, a province the product of whose people last year, if converted into dollars, would be sufficient to pay off the whole national debt of Canada; a province in which are invested hundreds of millions of dollars in manufacturing plants, employing some four hundred thousand men. That is the condition of affairs in the province of Ontario. What would be the condition if the hon. member for Brome had his way? I say that free trade would mean industrial stagnation and poverty for the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. It would mean the turning out of employment of hundreds of thousands of working men, and throwing their families destitute, more or less, upon the rest of the province. I ask any man who will look over the history of this country. Are you prepared to vote for a party that takes no stand on the fiscal policy of this country? Are you willing to trust a party that does not even know its own mind or its own policy for twenty-four hours at a time. That, I think, is the great issue before this country to-day. It is a question that has affected every country in the world, and

nearly every nation has been driven to the policy of protection to protect its own interests. Here, in Canada, an agitation has been started to tear down the bars and make this country practically an adjunct to the United States. Free trade in Canada would mean industrial stagnation, particularly in the East, and I think that before any hon. gentleman attempts to lead the Opposition in this country, or is entitled to seek power, he should tell the people of this country just where he stands on the fiscal question, and what he intends to do if he gets into power.
The hon. leader of the Opposition also says that we do not represent the people, and he asks Parliament to vote the Government out on that ground. I would like to ask by what right or authority he speaks for the people of the province of Ontario. Twice the people of Ontario had a chance to elect him to this House, but he was ignominiously defeated on both occasions, yet he stands up and tells the House that we do not represent the constituencies which we are here to represent at the present time. I would like to know by what right or authority a man makes such a statement who has been twice defeated for a seat in this House, and was eventually returned only through the courtesy, more or less, of this Government. I think it is an arrogant assertion for him to make, and that it is only made in desperation because he has no other case to make out.
What is the record of the present Government? Has the leader of the Opposition any fault to find with their war record? Has he any fault to find with taxation in this country, or with the way the public moneys have been spent? Does he find fault with the Government's efforts to repatriate the soldiers, or in the matter of pensions? If so, he has been beautifully silent. This Government spent $1,600,000,000 of the people's money in our war effort. Has the hon.*gentleman ever challenged the expenditure of one dollar of that amount on the ground that it was being misspent? If so, he has not done it in this House. Has he challenged any of the acts of the Government? He says we are extravagant, but he produces no figures to prove his contention. I would like to ask him whether he finds fault with the great prosperity this country has enjoyed during the last five or six years, in which time almost every branch of commerce has doubled or trebled. Field crops, for example, have grown from 33,000,000 to 55,000,000 bush-	%
els in the last few years, and their value has increased from $660,000,000 to $1,500,000,000 per annum. Land has increased in value from $35 to $52 per acre. Mineral production has increased from $91,000,000 to $173,000,000. Fisheries have increased from $29,000,000 to $60,000,000. Manufacturing industries have increased from $1,000,000,000 to $3,000,000,000. Do these figures show that the country has been mismanaged, or that we are now struggling in the throes of poverty? These are a few of the questions which the hon. gentleman might ask before he attempts to turn out this Government on the ground of extravagance or carelessness.
But we are going to have an election, and it may not be so very far off. I do not speak for the Government, but I want to tell the leader of the Opposition and hon. gentlemen opposite that if he thinks we on this side of the House are afraid to go to the country, he is quite mistaken. There will be an election, and when it is over and the leader of the Opposition surveys the political battlefield, he will see many an ambulance carrying the political corpses of his friends. Could the hon. gentleman himself find g. political asylum other than Elba or St. Helena? If he could, he would be very lucky indeed. I do not think he will find it in the province of Ontario.
The leader of the Opposition says the Government has made mistakes. Supposing it has. Where is the man that has not made mistakes? Has the hon. gentleman's career been so free from mistakes that he can hold up to ridicule any party or Government that may have made mistakes? Is the history of his party free from mistakes? Did they not make a mistake when they guaranteed the bonds of the Canadian Northern from Port Arthur to the East? Did they not make a mistake when they built the Grand Trunk Pacific forty or fifty years before its time? Have they not made mistakes later than that? Did Mr. Balfour not make a mistake when he opposed giving to South Africa perfect political freedom? Did Webster not make a mistake when he refused to join the Abolitionists, and Lee when he joined the Secessionists in the United States? Did Hannibal not make a mistake when he crossed the Alps? Did Mark Anthony not make a mistake when he succumbed to the bewitching wiles of the Egyptian Queen that cost him the sceptre of Rome? Who does not make mistakes?. Does not even

the sun suffer an occasional eclipse? It is only the leader of the Opposition who stands out on the great canvas of time and says: I am the spotless one; vote the Government out because their record has not been perfect. I ask, is that fair? Is not the fair thing to test the Government by the average working of its legislation and its effects? I ask this House to look over the Government's record during the last five or six years-trying years when the people of this country have been forced to do things they did not want to do, and pay taxes they did not want to pay, and eat things they did not want to eat, and say whether or not the Government has done well on the whole. I believe that when the time comes to appeal to the country, the people will endorse the Government's record which was made, let us remember, in the most trying times in history.
But there is more than that. This Government has duties to perform, and I think that one of them is to see that when a new Parliament is elected it will fairly represent the people. And I think that the western members are the ones who will gain most by this. Personally-and I think this applies to many in Ontario-I am of the opinion that we should be much better off going to the country before rather than after redistribution. But that is not the principle. The principle for this Government and for Parliament is that of administering justice, and only strict justice, to the people of the country, and when a Parliament is elected it should be elected on an honest and just franchise. But, Mr. Speaker, if those from the West, who have most to gain by this, think differently and vote accordingly, then I say to this Government that they can well consider their obligations in that respect fulfilled, and they might be justified in appealing to the country at any time they thought best.
Now, I would add a word by way of congratulation to the Prime Minister (Hon. Mr. Meighen), whose career I foll6wed for many years before I entered the House. I have seen him rise from a humble member until he now occupies the highest position in the gift of the Canadian people, and I sincerely congratulate not only himself but his party and the country as well. We have in him a leader who is not afraid to nail his colours to the mast, and he may rest assured that he has behind him a party that is willing to fight, and fight until the last trench is won. I tender him my heartfelt congratulations, for I think it is a
source of pride to us that a young man, without any financial assistance and without influence of any kind, can in this country rise to the greatest position which the people can offer him. It must be a source of pride to the right Ron. gentleman, and no doubt it is to the people of Canada, that he has risen to that eminence. He has, in the language of Tennyson:
Lived to clutch the golden keys,
To mould a mighty state's decreess.
And shape the whispers of a throne.


Hon. HENRI SEVERIN BELAND (Beauce) :: My hon. friend from Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) will not, I hope, expect me to follow him closely in the remarks which I intend to address to the House at the present time. I may, however, refer at once to his closing words, in which he asks the House and the country whether anybody can claim for himself that he has never been in his life guilty of a mistake, implying thereby that the present Government and that which immediately preceded it have been in many instances guilty of serious mistakes. Let me say that whatever the past mistakes of this Government may have been, the gravest and most serious of all is that of refusing, in such a determined manner, an appeal to the people, which is claimed by the whole country.
Although the question of the League of Nations is in the present debate only of secondary importance, two of the ministers who have seen fit to address the House have confined themselves entirely to that subject. The time for discussing the League of Nations is properly during the Budget debate. But you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, just for a few moments to say, in reference to the matter, that the expectation of the House and of the country that the representatives of Canada in Geneva would furnish the people with a report or a summary of the work accomplished there, as well as of the constitution of the League and of the part played by those representatives themselves, has not been frustrated. We have heard, first, my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) who, in a pointed, clear, and concise discourse, rich in adjectival description, outlined for us the structure of this international edifice known as the League of Nations. With his unusual power of eloquence, he has unveiled to us a part of the future. He has depicted that future to us as an earthly paradise, where all men will live like brothers.

Viscount Burnham alluded to what might be the constitution of such a council given executive as well as judicial powers, but they would have to determine what was necessary and then constitute the machinery to meet the. case.
Then he goes on:
I venture to propose this because I believe that you are anxious to bring into unity the various parts of the Empire and' guard against any breakdown in the future.
Was there any breakdown in the past I wonder? Now my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce will realize that there is an important movement on foot. But that is not all. Lord Cave on the same date expressed himself in the city of Ottawa, on the occasion of a lunch given by the Bar Association, in the following terms:
For a generation some of the ablest statesmen, of the time-Rosebery, Chamberlain, Grey, and others whose names will occur to you,

were considering how best a further link could be forged between the central and Dominion governments which should be neither so stiff as to gall, nor so weak as to break under a strain. It may be that the problem has been solved quietly, and almost unconsciously, (as our habit is) by the establishment of the Imperial War Cabinet as an effective council of the Empire. That Assembly of the leading statesmen of the self-governing parts of the Empire, first called together in 1917 for the purpose of discussing the conduct of the war and some of the higher issues of Imperial policy, proved to be of so much service, both to its members and to the countries concerned that it was unanimously determined at the instance of the British Prime Minister to keep it in being. And so other meetings took place at a later crisis of the war, and again when the terms of peace were under consideration. '
Now comes the crucial phrase :
The experiment,-for at first it was nothing more,-proved an unqualified success.
I believe that. It was a war measure, but, as my right hon. friend said the other day, "war is the negation of order."
And to many of us-* continues Lord Cave:
-it seems possible that the Imperial War Cabinet may, (if the Imperial Conference should so determine) drop its middle name, and while remaining wholly voluntary and consultative may become in world affairs the nerve centre of the autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth.	*
If you drop the middle name "war," you get the title "Imperial Cabinet."
Those who believe in a greater expansion and a greater development of Canadian autonomy will read with some dismay what is being said by those important British statesmen and public men. The question
fMr. Bdland.l
is not:	Shall the British dissolve, or shall
the British Empire endure? There is in this country as, I think, there is in every domininon of the British Empire, only one opinion:	that the British Empire should
last, should endure, should persist, should continue, for the good of the world; because the British Empire can and does play an important part in the world's affairs. We on this side hold to-day the view that was held by the Liberal party at all times-the view of Alexander Mackenzie, of Sir Oliver Mowat, of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, of Mr. Blake-that the British Empire will endure only through the exercise of the largest possible measure of local autonomy. Let us rebuff all attempts, patent or veiled, to sink Canada's individuality, Canda's selfconsciousness, Canada's self-reliance-in a word, Canada's national pride and autonomy, in the vortex of Imperial Federation.
There are two reasons, equally important, why we should resist any such attempts. One is with regard to the League of Nations. The concentration of the political powers of the British Empire would evoke suspicion in the minds of other nations; would provoke a spirit of rivalry, and, perhaps cause another race for supremacy in armaments. Furthermore, let us oppose the scheme, from whatever source it comes, on the ground that any such attempt to centralize political power in the metropolis of the British Empire would tend to the disintegration of that Empire.
There exists in Canada at the present time a good deal of unrest and dissatisfaction. That has been confessed by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. What, Mr. Speaker, in your opinion, is the cause of this dissatisfaction? Is it the direct and immediate result of that most terrific conflict which was inflicted upon humanity? Partly, yes. The fact that fifty thousand Canadians laid down their lives in the Great War; that at least fifty thousand homes mourn the loss of dear ones; that one hundred thousand Canadians have been maimed, incapacitated, disabled, partially or totally-certainly these circumstances are sufficient to create a certain amount of restlessness. But the main and the fundamental cause of the unrest and dissatisfaction in Canada to-day is to be found in the utter disregard of public opinion on the part of the present Government. Not only is public opinion disregarded, but our parliamentary institutions have been treated cavalierly and in a highhanded manner. It was my privilege to visit all the provinces but two during the

recess, and I found, from the Atlantic to the Rockies, a general opinion prevailing among the people to the effect that this Government has outlived its mandate, and concurrent with this opinion is the universal desire for an appeal to the people. It would be over-stating the case to contend that there are not a few friends who desire to see the Administration remain in office- a few personal friends, a few courtiers, a few sycophants, a few interested persons; but these exceptions only go to prove the rule.
Listening the other day to the right hon. gentleman's able address, I failed to detect any good ground upon which he could base his refusal to consult the Canadian people. The only ground upon which he could pretend to base that refusal was that the Canadian West was entitled to a larger representation in Parliament; that that larger representation could he obtained only through a redistribution of seats; that a redistribution of seats could be effected only after a census had been taken; therefore it was his duty, he thought, to postpone the general election till that redistribution had taken place. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is only a simulacrum of reason, it is a mere pretext. I am an admirer of the West; one cannot he indifferent to those immense plains which conceal in their bosom the food of nations. The immense coal deposits of Alberta, which could supply the motive power of numberless industries, cannot but appeal to the imagination. I repeat that I admire the West, and I would he very glad indeed to see their representation in Parliament increased. But what are the conditions? Since 1913 immigration in Canada has almost been at a standstill, though the pivotal province of Canada, Quebec, has very largely increased its population. It is no secret that no seats can be gained outside the province of Quebec unless there has been an increase in the population proportionate to the increase in the province of Quebec. However desirous one may be to see the West gain more representation in this House; the contention, I feel, that the West will gain substantially after the next redistribution cannot be entertained. I readily understood the right hon. gentleman when he pointed his artillery towards my friends sitting to my left. "Will you not have ten more seats?" he said. "Will you not have fifteen more seats, perhaps twenty-five, for all we know?" But I think the range was too long and that his projectile must have passed over the heads of my good friends the Agrarians.
My right hon. friend claims that the West may have twenty-five new seats. Well, I will set my prophecy against his: that after the next census the increased representation to the western provinces will be nearer one than ten, and between the two. But, for the sake of argument, let us say that it will be ten, fifteen, twenty, or even twenty-five. Does anyone amongst my friends the Agrarians, who know the adroitness of the Prime Minister, for one moment think that they will get one of those seats? Everybody knows how skilful a drafter of a measure is the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government and with what immense success he was able in the past to send home those men who did not wish to share his political views. No, my friends the Agrarians will find out after the next census that if the West is entitled to five seats more, ten seats more, fifteen seats more, they will be taken away from the rural constituencies and given to the urban centres. The odds are entirely against the Agrarians in this regard. In a moment of apparent tender compassion the right hon. gentleman turned to the group which, as he says, is angularly situated, and he said:	"See what confronts you. If you
have dissolution now, you loose fifteen, twenty seats.; whilst if you will vote against the amendment of the leader of the Opposition, you will not have the elections now and then you will have fifteen more seats and your group will be so much increased." I do not know my good friend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) very well if I cannot imagine coming from the remote bottom of his heart the groaning remark "Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes-I fear the Greeks even when they bear presents." There was no other reason he could invoke, on the contrary he has found very much comfort in the result of the Peterborough election. He says that the Peterborough election is a vindication of his fiscal policy. If it is possible for my right hon. friend to confine the discussion in a general election to the tariff issue, if it is possible for him to ignore or make the people of Canada ignore all the mistakes and blunders of his administration; if he thinks that all his sins and those of his predecessor are already forgotten or at least forgiven; if in a word his appreciation of the Peterborough verdict is just and correct, why not appeal to the people and he shall be supported by the country at large? He will not do that; he will cling desperately to the rudder in a frantic effort-


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: To save the country.


Henri Sévérin Béland: No, but to avoid the rock which awaits him, the rock of popular disfavour and indignation; he may not however do that indefinitely; he may postpone the evil day a week, a month, a year


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh no, never.


Henri Sévérin Béland: -but the time will come -when Its Majesty, the Canadian Constitution, will send him before his natural judge, the Canadian people.


George Green Foster: Good old judge.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That will condemn him. He has selected his ground - the tariff issue; he will not have anything else, and he protests very much when we Liberals charge him with being the instrument of the big financial interests of this country. He asks: "Where is your ground for the assertion?" This reminds me of the story of a lover who paid a visit to his sweetheart who was a little shy. He asked her: "Do you love me?" She did not answer. "If you love me, say so; if you do not love me, say so, and if you love me and do not want to say so, squeeze my hand." In this case, I think the big interests have come to the right hon. gentleman and have asked him: "Do you love us?" He did not answer. "Do you not love us?" He did not answer. "Well, let us settle it this way; if you love us and do not want to say so, squeeze our hand," and the right hon. gentleman has squeezed the hand of the big financial interests.
The hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. P. McGibbon) was asking us: "What is your policy on the tariff question? Have you a policy at all?" And all of those- gentlemen on the other side to whom it has been my privilege to listen since the beginning of the debate have put the same question and have .charged the leader of the Opposition with having no policy at all on the tariff question, of refusing to state his policy publicly. It has been my great advantage and pleasure to accompany the leader of the Opposition at some public meetings in Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and at every meeting the leader of the Opposition has made a clear exposition of his fiscal policy. When the time comes, on the Budget debate, to discuss the Liberal platform, I think my friends will be satisfied; but let me say that the Liberal platform has a few advantages which I will summarize as follows: The

Liberal fiscal policy harmonizes the diverse interests in Canada. It avoids extreme protection and its curses. It preserves in Canada the legitimate industries, especially those industries which are based upon our natural resources. It relieves the great body of agriculturists in Canada from the burden of taxation which bears upon them, and thereby enhances production. It renders more accessible to the housewife and to the workingman the procuring of the necessaries of life. It ensures revenue which is so necessary to face the present financial obligations, and it has the stabilizing effect which is all-important in this agitated epoch and period. We are here face to face with a case of personal power. If you wish an instance of personal regime in Canada, since the right hon. gentleman has taken the reins of office, the House will remember that last session and the session before last, measures were introduced into Parliament to create what was known as the Canadian Purchasing Commission. At the session before last this Bill which was introduced was never enacted into law. At the last session, the same fate met the same proposition.. The session came to an end on the first day of July, 1920, or thereabouts. The right hon. gentleman was selected as the Prime Minister of Canada, and two or three weeks had not elapsed before he convened around the council table his advisors and passed an Order in Council, in face of the refusal of Parliament in two sessions, creating the Canadian Purchasing Commission. If that is not a case of personal power and personal regime, I should like to know what is. All trace of a personal regime passed away in England with William IV, and indeed in France one has to delve back in history some two or three centuries to find an absolute monarch, Louis XIV, who when he was reproached for having ordered an iron mask on a man's face, answered, "I, I alone,
I am the King." That is the language spoken to-day to the people of Canada, through the House of Commons, by the right hon. gentleman. Now that the war is over, now that the majority of the members composing the Union Government has left it, now that the leader of the Unionist party of 1917 has resigned and has almost entirely disinterested himself from the public life of Canada, the proper course for this Government to take is plainly indicated; it should dissolve Parliament and appeal to the people of Canada for a new mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I have only a few more remarks to offer, and they are on the Quebec situation. A situation has developed in Quebec which seems to have attracted a large measure of attention on the part of the press outside of Quebec, of the population in general, and of the public men of this country. It is claimed that Quebec is isolated. I have never been able to understand from what, and from whom. Has not Quebec been in as complete intercourse with the other provinces of Canada as heretofore? For my part, I have never visited more of Canada than during the last two years-and-a-half. The personal and social relations as between province and province have certainly not been altered in any way. So much for the social aspect of the case. As far as commercial intercourse is concerned, competent authorities will tell you that the trade as between the province of Quebec and the other provinces of Canada is more flourishing than ever. In an international sense also, Quebec is not any more isolated. She trades with the Mother Country and the rest of Europe, with Asia, Africa, Australia, the United States, and the countries of South America. Numberless bottoms ply down the St. Lawrence in the navigation season laden with the magnificent produce of Quebec's arduous labour in the mines, in the forest, on the land, and in the factories. What is wrong? Is there anything wrong?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: The
Tories are wrong.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend from St. Hyaeinthe-Rouville (Mr. Gauthier) has laboured the contention to the breakingpoint, as it were, but one could not help observing this anomaly in his comparison. St. John the Baptist, to whom he humbly compares himself, lived in a desert. Why should he seek company? And is he not aware that the very place where he seeks company is the most isolated in the world? Or perhaps I am wrong. Maybe he is looking for deeper isolation, and that is why he is going to the other side. The population of French race, Mr. Speaker, are in point of number but meagrely represented in this Government. No member of the Canadian Government belonging to that race has been returned from Quebec. I do not wish to re-hash what passed during the fateful and famous elections of 1917, and shall confine myself to giving advice to the Government. The election of 1917_ was an abnormal or, at least,
lli
an extraordinary election. It was a war election.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Debauchery.


Henri Sévérin Béland: We had in 1917 a war general election: what is the matter with having to-day a peace general election? Let us have the election, let us bury the old feuds. Mr. Speaker, I would be the last man to seek political advantage out of appeals to racial prejudices, and in my twenty-four years of public life one would vainly search for a line or a word or an act of mine tending to create ill-feeling between the noble races which make up the population of Canada. Yet I feel bound to-day to bring to your attention and that of the country some accomplished facts, which may be, and as a matter of consequence, are more eloquent than words. The remarks I am about to make, Mr. Speaker, apply equally to the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government to-day and the right hon. gentleman, his predecessor, whose administration he claims he is responsible for, and rightly so. Therefore, he cannot have any objections to my holding him responsible for the actions of the Borden Government, and it is proper that it should be so.
Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the declarations made by the right hon. the Prime Minister himself, in Sherbrooke, in Granby, in Montreal, lately, and in Stirling, Ontario, as well as the challenge issued two or three days ago by the hon. member for the county of Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) I would not have laboured the point any further, but let me call your attention to some of the deeds of the Borden Government and some of the deeds of the Meighen Government.
We have in Canada a Board, constituted by Act of Parliament, called the Canadian National Railways Board. It comprises nine directors. Now the population of Canada is about nine millions, and the French population is in round numbers three millions.
I will read to you the names of the directors of the Canadian National Railways: Hanna, Mitchell, Wood, Riley, Hobson, Bell, Laporte, Cantley, Barnhill. One man of French race. Does my right hon. friend think that is a fair distribution of public offices? That is one example. The French race comprises one-third of the population of Canada. Now, let us take the Board of Commerce. Here is the first board: Robertson, O'Connor, Murdock; secretary, White; four men. Is any one of them of

the French race? None. Take the year 1920; the re-constituted Board of Commerce consists of the following gentlemen: White, Acland, Allan; no secretary. Is there any man of French race among them? None. Take the Board of Pension Com-missiohers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the Sugar Board?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Here is a board created to deal with the big question of pensions to Canadian soldiers and their dependents. The French race, I make bold to say, furnished 35,000 men at least to the armies that went from Canada to the other side. Thirty-five thousand is my figure; of these, a few thousands have laid down their lives across the ocean for their country. Many thousands more are disabled to-day and have to deal with the Pensions Board, and it will be interesting to see of whom this board is comprised. Its personnel is as follows: Thomson, Margeson, Davis; and secretary, Ahearn. Any man of French race among those gentlemen? None. Let me say here, Mr. Speaker, that when I refer to these gentlemen who happened to have been appointed to any of these boards, I do not desire to imply, in the remotest degree, that they are not qualified for their positions. Not at all. But that is not the point; it is not the question under consideration. Let us go one step further; let us take the International Joint Commission. There was at one time Mr. Casgrain, who was later called to the Government of the country, and was replaced by Mr. Mignault. The latter became a Judge of the Supreme Court during, I think, the administration of the hon. member for King's Nova Scotia, (Sir Robert Borden). What is now the composition of the International Joint Commission? Here are the names: Magrath, Powell, Hearst, and Burpee, secretary. Any man of French race there? Is the French race, the third of Canada's population, represented there? No. Let us go another step further.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Commercial agents.


Henri Sévérin Béland: In 1918, after the armistice was signed, the question came up of selecting three men to represent Canada at the Peace Conference, in the heart of France, at Versailles, a few miles from the great French centre, Paris. Now, here is one-third of the population of Canada comprised in the French race, and although three men are selected to represent this country in Frence, not a single one of them is of the French race or tongue. They were Sir Robert Borden, the Hons. Foster and Doherty.

Some HON. MEMBERS: Shame.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Here now is the first meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva, where three gentlemen were apointed to represent Canada. Who were they? The Right Hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir George Foster; Mr. Rowell, the ex-President of the Privy Council; and the present Minister of Justice, Mr. Doherty. Is there any man of French tongue among them, any man of French race? Not at all. Now Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that this matter has been brought up in the House, and I bring it up not because I want to complain but because we were challenged. Were we challenged? Let me quote to you the words of the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), uttered the other day:
I, Mr. Speaker, have more confidence dm the judgment and' sense of fair play of the people of Quebec than have these hon. gentlemen who profess to speak for that province, and my confidence in their judgment and sense of fair play is such that I believe in the course of time they will ask the men who are making these charges and indulging in these unwarranted statements to back up their charges and assertions with facts, and back them up in a way that will leave no doubt as to their truth of falsity.
On the other hand, my right hon. friend spoke in Montreal about three weeks ago and said that you could not point to one single sentence of his or a word uttered by him in the course of his public life that could be interpreted as being hostile to the French race in Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, actions speak louder than words, and is it any wonder to my hon. friend if the heart of Quebec is somewhat wounded? Is Quebec isolated? No, Mr. Speaker: Quebec is not isolated. She has a warm place in her heart for other provinces, and I venture to say that the provinces of Canada have a warm place in their hearts for the province of Quebec. And the hands of Governments are powerless to destroy feelings and sentiments that are three-quarters of a century old. Quebec's scientists, literary men, traders, bankers, capitalists, and manufacturers are in daily contact and constant communication with the scientists, the literary men, the traders, the bankers, and the manufacturers of the other provinces; and there is not in the province of Quebec so remote a hamlet in the centres of colonization, there is not a roof in the*whole province but where and under which the hard-working, the law-abiding, the liberty-loving peasant has not in his heart a warm feeling of human fraternity

and Christian love for his brother,-his brother the miner in the coal mines either of British Columbia or of Nova Scotia, his brother the fisherman of either the Atlantic or the Pacific coasts, his brother the working-man in the factories of Toronto or of Hamilton, London and Halifax, his brother the hardy tiller of the western plains. Isolated? Quebec does not feel isolated; it feels that the rest of Canada is with it. The average French-Canadian feels that the rest of Canada is in sympathy with him. And I have for this man boundless admiration and the profoundest respect, because he is in Canada to-day an element of stability, a factor of ponder-ation and a fruitful source of economic wealth. I love this man, this average French-Canadian. Trust him for he is true to his language, true to his creed, true to his traditions, true to his institutions and last but not least true to his King.
Mr. W. I). COWAN (Regina) : The hon. member (Mr. Beland) who has just taken his seat did what practically every opponent of the Government has done when confronted with the impossibility of successfully criticizing its actions-he complimented the members of the Cabinet upon the success that has attended their efforts. In his opening remarks the hon. gentleman complimented the representatives of the Government upon the attitude which they took upon international questions at the Geneva Conference. Let me say that if this Government had done nothing else than to appoint representatives who would so ably represent Canada at that Conference they are entitled to the gratitude of the people of this country. It was a question with a great many of us as to whether or not Canada-a nation which had never taken part in international affairs until quite recently and had been most domestic in all its politics-had representatives who could go and meet in council the great men of the world and hold their own in the deliberations which were to take place. A great many of us watched-as I am sure all intelligent and patriotic Canadians did - the proceedings of the Conference and when we saw, as my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) admits, that Canada's representative not only held their own, hut that they led in some of the debates and thereby established for their native land a position throughout the world which has reflected, and continues to reflect, credit upon this country, we were exceedingly satisfied with what had been done. Personally I am glad that our representatives so ably acquitted themselves, I am glad that they showed themselves to be equal to the task that confronted them, and I am sure the result will be that Canada will, more heartily than ever, uphold that great in-' stitution which has been created, the League of Nations, and which will, in time, save the world from any such conflicts in future as we witnessed a few years ago.
The tenor of my hon. friend's remarks was as I have indicated. Towards the close of his speech he changed his attitude and said: The present Government is a war government, elected under war conditions, and we want a peace election. Would it be a peace election if there were conditions such as prevailed some time ago when the Winnipeg strike was in progress and a dangerous agitation was at its height? Had an election been ordered then would we have had a peace election throughout Canada? There was nothing that the coolheaded business men of Canada felt more anxious about than that we should not have an election at that time because they were afraid of it. We in Western Canada particularly knew what the situation was and what it meant and we realized what the result would be. To-day though that agitation has subsided it has not yet entirely disappeared. Hon. gentlemen opposite themselves still admit that there is a great deal of unrest in Canada, and that agitation still continues. While in our part of the Dominion demagoguery has practically been taken by the throat by the common sense of the common people and placed where it properly belongs, while the demagogues have been practically compelled to stop their agitation, yet that agitation in some measure is still going on in various sections, and until it is completely quelled I myself would not be desirous of holding an election. On that issue I am prepared to abide by the calm, cool judgment of the Canadian people rendered under perfectly tranquil conditions. We are very gradually hut very perceptibly approaching that point, and when it comes I for one am quite prepared to abide by the consequences whatever they may be. Mr. Speaker, why should I be a party to disrupting the business of this country at this most critical period in its history, why should I subordinate my opinion to the political whims of the leader of the Opposition in order to assist him in his political aspirations? The amendment which he offers calls for an election but what would an election

mean at the present time? It could not be held for a considerable period, there is no question about that. Parliament would have to vote supplies before going to the country, and consequently there would be considerable delay. But what would an election mean when it did take place? What has an election always meant, not only to the business of Canada but the business of the United States where they have four-year election periods? In the United States that fourth year is always looked upon with dread by the commercial men because they know that it paralyzes business from one end of the country to the other. In Great Britain, in Canada, and in all the other British Dominions where the system of responsible government obtains, the idea has always been to disrupt business as little as possible by having the lowest minimum of time between the announcement of the election and the election itself. Admitting then that business will be disrupted by an election, is the present a good time for having it take place? In my opinion most undoubtedly, no.
What are the business conditions in Canada to-day, and what have they been for some little time back? As we all know business for the past two years has been carried on under most abnormal conditions. It is a matter of wonder to me that Canadian business men have succeeded in carrying on as well as they have done. They were faced with tremendous uncertainties because of the high prices, the conditions brought about by agitation, all the results that have followed the war. Because of all these factors they were faced by most abnormal conditions and yet they carried on splendidly. T think nearly every one of them during the period of uncertainty knew that a slump had to come. Many of them in conversation with me admitted that it must come, and quite a number were surprised that the date of its coming was delayed so long. But the slump did come last fall, and our business men are to be congratulated upon the fact that they buckled in as well as they did and have succeeded as well as they have in carrying this country through such a trying period. The conditions of the past winter have not been anything like as bad in this country as they were in 1917, or in 1913 and 1914. Still they have been bad enough. But times are improving. Every financial report that is being issued indicates that we are gradually and surely getting on to better ground, in fact that the worst

has passed. Yet at this time when our business men have succeeded in carrying us through so well, when the amount of unemployment is small in comparison with other countries, the leader of the Opposition comes along with an amendment to the Address and says: Let us have an election in order that we may further disrupt business interests as much as we possibly can during the coming summer. For in reality thtat is what the proposition means. The result will be that the business men of the country, faced with the uncertainty which an election occasions, will not carry on as they have at present arranged and that next fall unemployment will be much greater in Canada than it is to-day-much greater indeed and there may be no remedy for it. If, however, we continue as at present until business is again on a thoroughly firm foundation, then let there be an election whenever you please, because nobody in this House, Mr. Speaker, loves an election better than I do. It is the only sport, if you can call it sport, I take pleasure in.
But why does the leader of the Opposition desire to have an election immediately? If his star was in the ascendant, if he was sure of his ground, if he knew that by an appeal to the country he would gain strength, and that he would by five or six months' or even a year's delay be stronger than he is to-day, do you think he would ask for an election now? Far from it. He knows very well, as do his followers, that he is weaker in the Dominion to-day than when he was chosen leader of his party. There is not any question about that at all in Western Canada.
The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) says that he went with his leader through the western provinces. I wish he could tell you, Sir, some of the things which we see as a result of their visit to our section of the country. The hon. the leader of the Opposition held meetings in the city of Regina, as he did in other places, and the result was very, very plain to any one who cared to study the situation-in fact, it was not necessary to study it to see the effect. The hon. the leader of the Opposition, speaking the other day, said, that the spirit was far more important than the letter of the law. I said to myself:	Yes,
and out in Western Canada, the tariff being the chief issue, our people expected to see some tariff spirit in the various addresses which you delivered. Did we find any?


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: No.


Mr. COWAN:: 
Mr. MAHARG:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Walter Davy Cowan: Certainly.


John Archibald Maharg: Did I understand him to say that there were , two papers published or under the direction of the Agrarians in the province of Saskatchewan?


Walter Davy Cowan: No, I said that these two papers were the leading papers in the province of Saskatchewan supporting the Agrarian party. They do nothing else. The Government or the Opposition do not receive their support. This is the opinion they have formed of the hon. the leader of the Opposition.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to find out the opinion of the business men of our city and district with regard to the fiscal announcements made by the hon. the leader of the Opposition while in the West, and I have yet to find a Liberal or a Conservative who is satisfied with those announcements. The question I heard on all sides was:	What is his policy, what does he
stand for? They have not yet been able to find out. I want to say that that kind of willy-wabbling is something that the people of Western Canada will not stand for. They admire at any time even an opponent who has the courage of his convictions and who expresses them, rather than a man who tries to play the oily game of promising this locality one thing and that locality another. The people of the West prefer courage and honour-and honour is really honestly in that case. We want men who will be honest and fair with the electors.
Then I went amongst a great many of the returned men, and I remember one of them said to a group of his comrades: " Oh yes, he wants us to come and save him. But why should we do that? Did he come and save us?" That is the attitude they take, and you will find that that is the attitude they are taking all over Western Canada towards the hon. the leader of the Opposition. So he knows full well from what he has heard from his suporters if they are at all

observant, that his star is waning and that he cannot possibly come into power under normal conditions. But he thinks he has a chance when agitation is at its height, when the discontent which he and his party have manufactured has not been entirely wiped out by the improved conditions which are now rapidly coming into existence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the very fact that the hon. the leader of the Opposition has entirely ignored the tariff in his amendment proves conclusively that he himself knows that his fiscal policy is a miserable failure. I quite agree with you, Mr. Speaker, in your statement last week, that the proper time to discuss the tariff is when the Budget is before the House; but I am satisfied that had the hon. the leader of the Opposition moved an amendment dealing with the tariff issues referred to in the speech from the Throne, you would have found it very difficult indeed to rule any references thereto out of order. But instead of taking up that question, he has taken up another question altogether. If he knew that his fiscal policy was the strongest policy that he could possibly submit to this country, if he knew it was the winning card, do you think Sir, that he would have played the deuce? Not at all. He would have played the card which he knew would win, and the very fact that he has ignored it here is a confession that he knows his fiscal policy is a failure.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we had the leader of the Opposition out with us. We welcomed him; we were glad to welcome him because of his personal worth. We were glad to welcome him also because of the fact that he is the leader of a great party-we are always pleased to welcome a man into our country even if we disagree with him. Politically we welcomed him and we who are on the Government side, will welcome him again even more heartily than we did before. To him we say: Come again, if the result is going to be as it was before-come as soon as you can and as often as you may; hold as many meetings as you can-because it is quite evident that the more meetings the hon. gentleman held when he was last in our part of the country the weaker became his case and the less his strength.
It seems to me that it would be quite unfair to ask the Government to hold an election at the present time, and I for one am going to oppose the proposal of the leader of the Opposition. What has happened is this-and it has been stated so often in the House that it seems ridiculous to repeat it: for a period of two years, 
while demobilization was going on, the Government were so busy carrying out their duty that they had no time to attend to the political side. But did hon. gentlemen opposite play the game fairly during that time? Did they assist the Government in their demobilization work? Instead of that, they and their press all over the country were carrying on an agitation against the Government in a most demagogic way. And now, when they have created as much discontent in the country as they can, they say:	The time is ripe; we have chosen
our weapons; we have chosen the time; we have chosen the ground; we are going to force the Government to a fight. Well, I do not think that the members of the Government are such political fools as to agree to any such terms as that. So far as I am concerned, I am going to have something to say about the time; something to say about what the weapons shall be; something to say about what the conditions shall be. These things are not to be left entirely to the Opposition; when the fight is fought it will be in a fair manner, and each party will be given an equal opportunity. The Government will be given time to explain its policy; to lay before the country its record, and to offset the demagogic agitation which for some little time has been so dangerously carried on by the Opposition.
I wish to make a brief reference to one or two matters mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I am not going to discuss tariff to-day, but I should like to make reference to the duty on fruit, a phase of the question which was referred to the other day by the hon. member for Yale (Mr. MacKelvie). It has been argued that we who in past times favoured a duty upon certain articles were, by reason of that fact, the sworn enemies of the farmers of our country. In my humble opinion the duty on fruit has been of the greatest possible benefit to the farmers in the Prairie Provinces. I think all will agree that it is to the general advantage of Canada to have our fruit lands cultivated. Fruit lands abound in British Columbia; it is the natural fruit producing district of the Prairie Provinces. Is it of advantage to the farmers of the Prairie Provinces that these fruit producing areas shall be cultivated; that the orchards shall increase and the production of fruit become greater? I unhesitatingly say, yes. The member for Yale told us the other day that during his lifetime the production of fruit in one little valley had increased from one car-load to five

thousand car loads, if I remember correctly. Is it an advantage to the people there to have these five thousand car-loads of fruit produced? Obviously, it means that they can get fresher fruit, because the fruit can be taken from the prairies to that district in a much shorter time than it can be brought from the states of Oregon and Washington. Besides, the fruit from our own fruit-growing districts arrives in much better condition; a much smaller amount of it is decayed and spoiled. Furthermore, the expansion of this industry creates a population tributary to the railways; the volume of traffic carried by the railways increases, and the lowering of the cost of transportation is, or will be in time, materially assisted. That is a very important consideration. The fruit does not ripen in British Columbia until a month or so later than it ripens in Washington and Oregon. That is a tremendous advantage to the foreign shipper and the foreign grower; he can and does come in and supply our market a month before our own growers can take advantage of it. If we are going to have these lands cultivated at all, is it fair to ask the fruit growers to do it under those conditions? I unhesitatingly say, no. What is the result of this condition? The result is that to-day the farmers are feeding their splendid apples to the cows-all because the Oregon and Washington producers were able to get into our market last fall and supply it before our fruit had ripened. In a letter which I received to-day, a fruit-grower in the Nelson District says: "I am feeding my apples to the covfs." He says further that two things are necessary: one, that the duty on fruit should be maintained, and second, that the express rates to the prairies should be lowered. In that I absolutely agree.
I do not believe that the increase in express rates, recently put into force on our railways, is beneficial to our country. The effect is that the people cannot pay the rate; the railways do not get the traffic; the volume of business is not there; men are not required; unemployment results. It seems to me, therefore, that the proper policy to pursue is to establish the rate at such a figure as will ensure a maximum of traffic for our railways. If this is done the result will be more satisfactory. The question of transportation rates is of far greater moment to the farmers of Western Canada than any tariff question can possibly be.
I notice a reference in the Speech from the Throne to the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill with regard to scientific and industrial research. I am sure that the member for London (Mr. Cronyn) must feel very much pleased. I have been associated with him on the special committee which has been studying this question for the last couple of years. I hope that in [DOT] the Bill to be brought down the Government will make most generous provision along these lines. It has been my pleasure during the recess to address some twelve to twenty meetings of business men, clubs and so on, on the subject of the establishment of a scientific and industrial research bureau in Canada. Without exception these men have unanimously passed resolutions, many of which I have with me, favouring the establishment of such a bureau. They do not believe in the agitation which has been carried on for so many years and which has led the people in Eastern Canada to believe that the prairies are a purely agricultural country. We do believe that agriculture is our basic industry, but we further believe that a great deal of manufacturing can be done in Western Canada. The agitation to which I have referred has caused our eastern people to believe that there is no opportunity for the investment of capital in our western country. We know otherwise, and we want this bureau because we wish to have an industrial life in Western Canada. That is the attitude taken by hundreds, probably thousands of men to whom I have spoken, and they are all agreed, so that I hope the Government will make very generous provision in that regard.
I am not going to vote for the amendment. Before I left the city of Regina, it was rumoured through the press that this amendment was to be moved, and I took it upon myself to consult as many as I could of the business men, Liberals as well as Conservatives, of my city. There was not one-and I did not pick them out-but said: " No, we do not want business conditions upset any more this summer; we want an opportunity to get back to solid foundation, normal times, and until then we do not want any such upheaval as an election would precipitate. For that reason, because I think the business interests of Canada are to be greatly considered in these matters, I am going to vote against the amendment.
Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle), (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to have in this important debate on

the Address, an opportunity to offer a few considerations in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the Opposition, and I avail myself of the occasion to offer him the tribute of my admiration for his energetic and patriotic attitude before this House and before the country.
The main argument, the essential argument put forward by the leader of the Opposition, under whose flag I am proud to serve, in his contention that the Government's duty is immediately to order general elections, is that the Government does not command the confidence of the people. If the Government does not hold the confidence of the people and governs the Dominion in spite of the people which denies them its confidence, this Administration is unconstitutional; for the constitution provides for the government of the people by the people. If this Administration is unconstitutional inasmuch as it takes no account of the national will, then this is nothing but tyranny, nothing but manifest despotism. And it seems to me that the Government cannot but be convinced that the people of Canada have withdrawn from them their confidence.
There are public facts which undeniably show that the will of the people are for a change of government. In the western provinces, for instance, it is plain that the Agrarian movement is very popular and consequently very powerful; and it is evident that this Agrarian movement wants to do away with the present Government. Indeed, the place occupied in this House by the political leader of the farmers (Hon. Mr. Crerar) clearly shows that the sentiment of the farmers is that the Unionist government should go.
Another fact, one of yesterday only, the election of West Peterborough, is a signal evidence that the Unionist block of the old province of Ontario is disintegrating, and consequently it seems evident, in view of the election of our friend Mr. Gordon, that Ontario, a prey to many opinions, is however manifestly inclined to give its confidence to the leader of the Liberal party, the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King. The victory won in Peterborough West is a kind of popular ovation which bids fair for the hopes of our leader, and is, for the right hon. Prime Minister, pregnant with painful anxieties.
Finally, another fact which is not of yesterday, and is but a persistent reprobation of the present Government, is the attitude of the old province of Quebec. Indeed old Quebec remains manifestly so antagonistic,

so unanimously antagonistic to the Government that the hon. Prime Minister is powerless to add to the Cabinet a single French-Canadian from the people's Chamber, understanding as he does that the man of his choice could not be elected in any county of the province of Quebec. To characterize this attitude of old Quebec the friends of the present Government speak of the "Isolation of Quebec". The phrase is a false one. Quebec is not isolated; Quebec has its place here. Its place is not by itself, its representatives are part of the powerful group made up from all the Eng-glish provinces. The Quebecers are to be found in the powerful mass of citizens who are the enemies of all despotism, enemies of all tyranny, and faithful servants of the nation's will, all those who, at this time, long for a general election to overthrow a Government which are keeping themselves in power by means of an infamous campaign of fanaticism, who obstinately cling to office through an infamous tyranny, and who stand before us -crowned with power but tramping under foot the groaning nation.
Thus this Government offers to our astonished eyes the lamentable spectacle of its powerlessness to represent upon the floor of this House the oldest, the most Canadian ethnic group. Does this party represent the nation? It does not. Not a single French-Canadian member of my province is to be found in the ministerial camp to represent the race of the discoverers, of the pioneers, of Canada, whose sons by the next census will show to be nearly one half of the total population of this country.
Since the disappearance of Unionism, could the new National Liberal Conservative party be acceptable to the people? Its very name is nothing but a camouflage. This party is the very reverse of what its assumed name implies-What! National, these hybrid remnants of uncompromising and persecuting Unionism? National, in its true sense, means belonging to the whole nation, suitable to the whole nation, to its ideals. Anti-national is the term which best fits this party and this Government.
Nothing therefore should interfere with a prompt election. On the contrary, circumstances imperiously require one. Have we forgotten that we are in 1921, and that since 1911, we have had but one election? The election of 1917 was not so much on a programme of local politics as on one of foreign relations. Practically we have had no election in view of Canadian affairs

since 1911. This is ten years ago, the limit of duration of two parliaments under the constitution of the country. Had our would-be masters any respect for the constitution, any care for the people's interests, any anxiety for the prerogatives of the nation, they would have already appealed to the people and would not cling to office until the last day of the last month of the last possible year of the life of this Parliament.
But, the partisans of the Government will say, to have elections in 1921 is to have them on the present electoral map, when the next census might justify a new arrangement of constituencies which might entitle the western provinces to a larger representation. I will answer that it is not by changing the limits of the constituencies that you will change the sentiment of the people. The cunning of these territorial delimitations in view of elections, succeeds. I admit, in displacing majorities in many cases. Thus, by clever manipulations of boundaries, the majority in a county can be drowned by the majority to be found in a neighbouring constituency, The consequence of the census is to change the vote majorities in some constituencies, and espcially to modify the number of the members of the House, by making them, for instance, two hundred and forty instead of two hundred and thirty. But what will not be changed is public opinion, the popular sentiment of the country. This popular will, this popular sentiment will be made known quite as well by 230 members as by 240. It therfore seems to me that if the Government had no other object but to find out public opinion by a general election, they could do so just as well by appealing to the present constituencies as by [DOT]waiting to consult newly redistributed electoral divisions. I therefore say:	to
give as a reason for justifying the putting-off of a general election, the propriety of waiting for a new redistribution, is but a pure pretence, a mere put-off, under the circumstances a putting off of the coming demise of their moribund Government.
If, in compliance with the wishes of the western people, which the Prime Minister seems to want to fall in with, the general election is retarded, I am willing to concede that the West will have secured a local advantage, an increase of its prestige, but on the other hand the general good shall have been sacrificed. This general good is of constitutional import. It is a thing which makes for the happiness of the whole population of the Dominion to be
governed by men enjoying its confidence, to be saved from unconstitutionality, from tyranny and manifest despotism, a crime the result of which is to put the government of the people in the hands of a party leader who does not possess the confidence of the people. Is it not criminal for a government to sacrifice the general good, that is the government of the people by the people, to the individual good of the citizens of the West? I wish my voice could compete with the powerful organ of the Prime Minister and reach the citizens of the West; I would say to them: "Gentlemen of the West, this individual good which you covet, that of coming back to the Federal Parliament with two or three more representatives, do you want, in order to obtain it, to sacrifice the general good I have mentioned, in order to obtain what is after all but a paltry increase of your prestige in Ottawa?" I would add: "Gentlemen of the West, we are living in the same country; should your wish prevail, it would mean the sacrifice of the individual good of the old provinces, the province of On

tario and the Maritime Provinces, which, contrary to your good fortune, would see their representation and prestige at Ottawa decrease by the loss of a few members in Parliament." And I would conclude: "My good friends of the West, let us first save our dear country, so proud in the enjoyment of her young liberties; let us save our dear country from the great evil of despotism, of the great evil of tyranny, of which I spoke a moment ago, by having general elections immediately."
For all these considerations, Mr. Speaker, I join my voice to that of my leader (the Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King) and say: "Let us go to the polls."
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. HERBERT MACDONALD MOWAT (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I had almost hoped that this debate on the Address would have been confined to the chief leaders on both sides of the House, so that by shortening it we could the sooner get down to practical business, but as this seems to be a free-for-all, I avail myself of the opportunity to make a few observations on current events.
In the speeches made by hon. gentlemen opposite I notice references to the continued presence on this side of the House of the class to which I belong, called

eral-Unionists on this side by our friends opposite, although I do not assert that those remarks are prompted by bad feeling. The situation is analogous to the illustration I have given of the hockey team. But everyone knows that a man who plays hockey on one team can play just as well on another, and while he played for all he was worth for his home team he will play with equal vigour and zeal for the team he has lately joined. If he fails to play as well for the one as for the other, then he is no sportsman at all.
I now desire to make an observation or two upon the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. It is a surprising thing to us to find that instead of the main issue which agitates and will agitate the country he should have chosen nothing but the mere resolution which he presented in the form of an amendment to go before the country at this time. What is it? He simply submits the issue to an intelligent people like the Canadians that an election must take place at one part of the year instead of later in the year or even next year, that a few months between an election is to be the whole issue between the people of Canada as to whether this Government shall remain in power or not. Is there anything more in it? It is an expression of want of confidence and, if carried, the Government would be expected to go out. There is nothing but that one issue -no substance, no principle, no facts, nothing to argue before the people, but there is the hope that a vote will take place which will turn the present Government out of power and bring my hon. friends opposite into office. Is that enough to present to the country in view of the issues which have previously been raised by my hon. friends opposite? The real issue is contained in the resolution of the Liberal convention, and in the Speech from the Throne, and the clause in the speech is worth repeating :	.
It is the opinion of my advisers that in such revision regard must be had to the necessities of revenue and as well that the principle of protection to Canadian labour and legitimate Canadian industries. including agriculture, which has prevailed for more than forty years in this country, must be consistently maintained; but that the customs duties' imposed to that end should be no higher than is essential to ensure good standards of living among our working population, and to retain and make possible the normal expansion of the industries in which they find employment.
Now, one would suppose that that issue would have been taken up at once because that is the essential policy of one party as against a contrary policy of another; and 
yet the Address will leave the House without assertion by my hon. friends of the policy which they proclaim as their own. When the Address carries it will therefore carry without one dissenting voice on the really vital issue between the two parties. Nevertheless we are asked to blindly vote on simply the one question of power or no power, without regard to the principle it is maintained upon or the reason advanced for making the change.
Now what is the result of this, what seems to be behind it? My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition wants power too quickly. Is it likely that when he won that very notable victory in the convention of the Liberal party in 1919 they had any idea that they were boosting him at once to the position of Prime Minister of Canada? Neither in this country nor in any other has it been the practice to take a person not in public life at the time being and suddenly make him Prime Minister. That was not done in the case of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. For ten years Sir Wilfrid patiently laboured to build up his party until he got it into a position of solidity. It was only after ten years of effort of that kind that he found himself at the head of a party which was possibly stronger than had ever before been seen in Canada.
My hon. friend should take note of the examples because there are many in the world's history, of sudden ambitions coming to naught. Let me point him and his followers to one only. My hon. friend should look at Mr. Longfellow's notable poem of "Robert of Sicily, brother of Pope Urbane and Valmond Emperor of Allemaine who was divested of his magnificent attire" and placed in a humble position. . He could not acclimatise himself to the surroundings and demanded that he be restored. But it was not until after three years service in a humble position that he was acclaimed again and then only after making an admission of humility which would very much become my hon. friend. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in Longfellow's poem the angel addressing this poor fellow, going about clothed in the garb of servitude instead of being dressed in regal robes said to Robert of Sicily: "Art thou the King?" And he replied:
I am the King and come to take my own ' From an imposter who usurps my throne.
Well that was the position but it took many years to put the King of Sicily in a position where he admitted that his former conduct had been unwise and that he must humble himself before he could attempt to attain power.


My hon. friend asks for a vote of want of confidence without any reasons of policy at all, not even contradicting by resolution the policy which is opposed to him in the speech from the Throne, and he asks that those whom he is pleased to call usurpers be put out and he be put in. There is a great moral lesson to be obtained from the poem "King Robert of Sicily" that I commend to my hon. friend's attention.
With regard to the tariff it is quite true that this is not the time to discuss it, and I do not propose to do so, but there are certain political considerations connected with the tariff question which may well be considered here because there is a paragraph in the speech from the Throne at present before the House which deals with that subject. I point out- that the tariff question has always been an unhappy, not to say a disastrous one, for the Liberal party. For years we had the idea that there was a large body of free traders in the country, men brought up on the old doctrines from England-where the circumstances are quite different-who had to be appeased in the matter of the tariff; and throughout the history of the Liberal party in the last forty years there have been sharp differences of opinion and well-discussed policies brought in with regard to it. It is quite true that we as Liberals never hit the right note with regard to the tariff in the whole course of our history. I was reading the other day,-the remarks made in 1882 by Mr. Collins who wrote the "Administration of Lord Lome." At page 246 of that work he says this:
The demon of discord-
He is now speaking of 1882 when Mr. Blake was leader and Mr. MacKenzie was still his second in command in the House of Commons:
. . . the demon of discord had entered into the Grit party family. There were the modified free-trade Reformers and' those who admired the political rectitude of Mr. Blake, 1 . Mr, Blake went out to Durham and told the people that ''free trade is for us impossible." Mr. Mackenzie raised his voice in East York and assured the electors that any doctrine but that of free-trade was pernicious, retrogressive and a relic of commercial barbarism, and so an era of Reform speech collisions began all over the country and the enemy made the most of the clashing declarations. Thus it came to pass that the leader of the Opposition could scarcely make utterance on any question that a counter statement made somewhere else by Mr. MacKenzie, by Mr. Mills or the Toronto "Globe" did not rise like the ghost of Banquo to confront him, and vice versa.
That was the situation in 1882. For some time we Liberals were perfectly satisfied,
I think with very few exceptions,-those being the theoretical free-traders,-with the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the tariff. For some time matters were settled and quiet, but there were claims made by the theoretical free-traders-chiefly, I think I may say, the editor of the Toronto Globe and others-for a greater reduction; and the heart of the old Grit Free-trader was at last satisfied, apparently beyond measure, by the declaration of the Liberal party in convention in August, 1919. Then the promised land seemed to be in sight because there was no question and no compromise there as to what should be the policy of the party on the tariff. The proceedings of the convention are contained in a very handsomely gotten up book, which, unlike the manna from heaven, which was free, can be had at any time for the price of one dollar from the organization committee of the Liberal party. I notice that this was the resolution on the tariff; I shall not read it all but merely the part that is important. It is to be found at page 204:
That the best interests of Canada demand that substantial reductions of the burdens of Customs taxation be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance.'
That a revision downwards of the tariff should be made whereby substantial reductions slhould, be effected in the duties on wearing apparel and footwear, and on other articles of general consumption (other than luxuries), as well as on the raw material entering Into the manufacture of the same.
And this is important because it gives to the old free trader who has been waiting for it for so many years a pledge that this policy will be put into legislation. The last clause of the resolution reads:
And the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provision of this resolution when returned to power.
In addition to that, in an admirable speech of appreciation on his appointment as leader of the Liberal party, my hon. friend from Prince, P.E.I.-he apparently having been a party to these resolutions- said:
That platform, ladies and gentlemen, is the chart on which is plotted the course desired by the people of the country, as expressed through the voice of the Liberals assembled here. So with this chart and this compass, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, let us press on from this moment, a great, a united, a mighty force, making ever for new liberty, for wider freedom, for greater righteousness in the public affairs -of this nation ; press on, evermore' zealous and united, till we have reached the goal where

the principles and policies laid down on this historic occasion will have become, through legislation, part of the law of our land.
Yet despite that pledge to the old free trader, when the matter comes up squarely for decision in the House of Commons, my hon. friend, instead of moving a counter resolution defining the terms under which his party are decided to go definitely before the country, and so making those terms part of the proceedings of the House of Commons, brings in this bare, scarecrow resolution charging usurpation against those who are in power.
But there is one satisfaction-that this resolution which I have read was a deliberate resolution emanating from the Committee on Resolutions, and is contained in-this book of the National Liberal Convention of August, 1919. This is a very nice little book and is apparently got out by my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Murphy). There may have been others besides the hon. member for Russell who were important figures at that convention; one would have thought that perhaps the hon. members for Gaspe and Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) would have had some influence there, or Mr. W. T. R. Preston, or some other persons who are supposed to be great in the Liberal party; but apparently this is the product of my hon. friend from Russell, because in the front of the book there is a very fine photograph of him [DOT]- which hardly does him justice, although it is a very handsome one-and under his name, Hon. Charles Murphy, M.P., are these pregnant words: "Who planned, organized and directed the Convention."
It is strange that while this Convention took place on August 5th, 6th and 7th in 1919, it was not until the month of January, 1921, or a year and five months afterwards, that this book was given to the public at the price of a dollar. One wonders why this delay. It was impossible during that time to know what was the policy of the Liberal party. I asked several persons if they could give me the resolutions, as having lost my newspaper published at the time of the convention, I was in the dark as to the definite pronouncement of the Liberal party upon the tariff question. Now there is no more doubt on the point, for here is the book with these photographs and speeches and resolutions, and we all know what the policy of the Liberal party is. So it is no use for my hon. friend from Ste. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) to repeat that somebody had said that the tariff [Mr. Mowat.)
policy of the Liberal party was only "theoretical." It is a perfectly definite policy set down in black and white, and the Liberal party must stand or fall by it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: There is one "Hear, hear" from the other side, and I am glad to hear him.	/


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: More of them! Come on, we will have a few more. The point is, we cannot distinguish which gentleman is saying "hear, hear"; if we could, I am afraid we would not hear so many.
While there is no amendment to the tariff policy so frankly declared by the Government, still we have a definite declaration in this book. The first resolution says that the Liberal party when returned to power will substantially reduce the tariff. That leads one to ask: What is the meaning of the word "substantial." As I passed the Library I went in and, as many of us lawyers sometimes have to do, I looked into the dictionary to get a definition of the term. In the last edition of Webster's International Dictionary I found the meaning of the word. I am quite sure that the framers of the resolution which I have read about a "substantial" reduction of the tariff, being educated and scholarly men, must have known the meaning of the words they were using, especially of this word "substantial," because they put it in their speeches and in their resolutions.
Well, I looked up in Webster's Dictionary -an authority my hon. friends will probably admit to be as good as any-the meaning of the word "substantially". I find that it means, first, " in a substantial manner"- no shading down, as we had it in West Peterborough, but an actual, substantial reduction. Further, it means " really, actually, solidly, essentially,, materially,"-in a substantial manner. It means that and nothing else. So that if hon. gentlemen opposite introduce petty resolutions calling for reductions of ten fifteen twenty-five or even forty per cent in the tariff, we shall know that they have undergone a change of heart since August, 1919. To effect a reduction which would be something material, something in line with the definition I have given, my hon. friends would have to advocate at least a seventy-five per cent reduction. On that policy my hon. friends must go to the country, and I think that the issue would be met with the greatest alacrity and pleasure by gentlemen on

this side, and by supporters of the Government generally.
For the reasons which I have given, therefore-Laving regard to the uncertainty which exists on the other side as.to what principles we would adopt and what leader we would follow if we went to the other side-all this doubt makes it perfectly clear to those who were formerly Liberals and who have now joined in an honourable compact known as the National Liberal and Conservative party-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: that they should stay
where they are. I think I heard an observation by an hon. gentlemen opposite, no doubt with regard to the name " National Liberal and Conservative party". Well, is it not true? Is this not a national party? Does it not stand for the nation as against groups, as against small interests here or small racial conflicts there or anything that is brought up to oppose this Government? Does it not mean that the party in power has really put Canada in the way of being a nation, although yet in her tottering steps?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: I accept with readiness
the laughter, the forced merriment which I hear. I do not believe that my hon. friend who laughs that way and sneers about Canada being a nation can really be the good Canadiaii that I would have taken him to be. If there is one thing that has engendered pride of race, pride of country and a true spirit of patriotism in Canada, it is the idea that in view of Canada's contribution to the great conflict she is recognized as beginning to be a real nation. True, she is a member of the galaxy of British nations, but that does not alter the situation. We shall go on henceforth trying to make Canada great and good; trying to get rid of racial troubles which we have had. Hon. members know that I made a strong plea during the last session in this regard, and I repeat it: we can never be a nation unless we eradicate difficulties of that nature; unless a strong effort is made and the best of good feeling is exerted with the view of bringing them to an end. We are of many races, and unless we have the spirit that will get us together we shall never have the future which we all desire. So that regardless of what comment may be made on the name chosen, nothing could be better, nothing more true. We are a national party; it is a union of two parties who respect each other, and who
do not in any way try to interfere with each other's former ideas. It is Liberal and it is Conservative. My friends the Conservatives have had the grace to allow the word " Liberal " to come first because we are the fewest in numbers, but the three names, " Conservative", " National", " Liberal", do seem to me to combine not only the elements of the party, but the ideals for which they will continue to strive.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the able address delivered by my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), and particularly to the biting remarks which he made with regard to his former associates, I was reminded that the hon. gentleman, with his Liberal antecedents, was made a candidate in the county of Parkdale in 1917 and was elected under very special circumstances. I remember very well that at the time of his election the Tories of that eminently Tory division of Parkdale made a covenant with the party organizer that for one Parliament only would that circumscription be loaned to the hon. gentleman; they did not expect that Parliament would last five years, either. Sir, I am not surprised that the hon. gentleman's presidency of the Liberal Association in the province of Ontario should have occurred at a time when the Reform party in that province was at its lowest ebb.
My hon. friend says that it has been impossible for him, after reading the report of the Liberal convention held in 1919, to find therein a policy to guide, first, the destinies of the Liberal party, and then the destinies of the Canadian people. My hon. friend is so blind as not to be able to read the admirable platform laid down by the Liberal party in convention assembled in 1919 as set forth in that report. May I not refer him to another authority? He says that on the tariff the Liberal party has no policy. Let me bring forward the latest authority in the Tory party-pardon me, in the Tory-Liberal-National party- and I hope that my hon. friend will be satisfied with it. It was stated in the House that this was our battle-ground:
Reduce the tariff and you will help to reduce the cost of living. The policy followed by this Administration has had the result of creating unrest which continues to grow every day and every week, and this policy- is proved by its results to be wrong, change it; reduce the tariff, and you will reduce the cost of living.
This policy, Mr. Speaker, was laid down by the eminent member who represents the



county of St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Gauthier) - the new John the Baptist prophesying the advent of a saviour for Canada. And, Mr. Speaker, that speech was delivered in this very Chamber less than a year ago.
When my hon. friend (Mr. Mowat) opened his remarks this evening he stated that he .would speak on current events. I would have forgiven him had he spoken only on current events. But when he went as far back as the Middle Ages and the geography of Sicily-perhaps he meant the Scilly Islands, because I thought his speech very silly-he lost all right to be answered this evening; therefore he will pardon me if I leave him at that and if I only speak on the amendment which is before the Chair.
Before I do so, I wish to say a few words about the very degrading incident which took place the other day in the House of Commons. It is an axiom in politics as in war that it is good tactics not to do what the enemy wants you to do. For that reason, we, on this side of the House, after the spectacle presented by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rou-ville (Mr. Gauthier) in his speech of last week, decline to gratify our hon. friends opposite by entering into an unseemly brawl such as the hon. gentleman's new-found allies hoped he would be able to provoke in this chamber. At the same time I owe it to myself and to my native province that I should emphasize the political solidity as well as the personal respectability of the people of Quebec by drawing attention to the contrast presented in regard to both by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville and his performance of a few days ago.
Appropriately enough from the hon. gentleman's point of view, he selected the second anniversary of the death of our great leader whose memory he professed to honour as the date upon which to confess his own shame, and to give to the House a long list of personal and political lapses of conduct of which neither the House nor the country, outside of the province of Quebec, would have had any knowledge, and in which credence would not have been placed by the majority of the people, were the admissions not made by the hon. gentleman himself. Where the hon. gentleman stands in public estimation after his extraordinary revelation of his own chequered and tortuous career, I need not specify; but I may observe that after his attacks on all his former comrades and political associates, Conservative, Nationalist and Liberal,

because he was all that, and after his further attacks on labour and the farmers, it goes without saying that he placed himself outside the pale of all political parties, and now there is "none so poor' to do him reverence."
After having made it plain to the House and to the country that he occupies a position such as no other man belonging to any party in the province of Quebec would occupy, the hon. gentleman asks the House and the country to believe him when he says that he is no Judas. Mr. Speaker, that was an unhappy phrase for the hon. gentleman to use. I will not apply it to him. I might remind him however that, after receiving his forty thousand pieces of silver, Judas, at least, had the grace to go out and hang himself. The performance of a similar act is not, however, necessary in the case of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Rouville. The black flag is already at the top of the mast in St. Hyacinthe, and the sheriff with his posse is waiting his political execution. This performance degrading as it was, made it certain that no matter what member of the Government may have stood sponsor for him, not even his shadow will ever be cast over the place that he and his sponsor planned that he should occupy. That 9 p.m. is all that I have to say on the subject, and I leave the hon. gentleman, his new associates and his sponsor to contemplate together and separately the mess they have made of things and the contempt in which they are held by all who esteem fair dealing, fairplay and upright conduct in the public and the private life of this country. Further than this, about this incident I shall say nought. I do not care, I never cared to play bridge with a corpse.
I now intend to address you, Sir, on the question which has been debated since the beginning of last week, and I beg to state at first that I will support the amendment moved by my honoured leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) because I believe in British Parliamentary institutions. No government is possible unless it has the consent of the governed. This is a basic principle in the British Parliamentary system, and we in Canada have accepted that system of government. My young friend, the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), in his admirable address the other evening, gave a case in point which I will cite once more. I happened to be in England in 1905 and 1906 when the general elections were fought. Everyone will remember that

the Balfour Government came into office in 1900 during the South African war, that government being returned by an immense majority. It was a "win the war Government" such as this Government was on the morrow of the 1917 election. They called the elections of 1900 the "khaki" election. But soon after the treaty was signed in South Africa and the people of England returned to their respective political affiliations.
Constitutionally speaking, the government was entitled to seven years' existence, and Mr. Chamberlain, who was one of the leading ministers in that government, started at once to agitate the question of Imperial preference and that of protection There were many changes in the Cabinet at that moment, several of the ministers left the government and there was a series of by-elections. In Canada, several ministers have left the Government since 1917 for divers considerations and a series of by-elections has taken place. To continue the parallel, from 1900 to 1905 in England Mr. Balfour lost in most of the constituencies, so much so that long before the constitutional end of his government, he decided to dissolve the House. I remember his address delivered, I believe, in the city of Birmingham-he was the member for Birmingham or Manchester. He positively stated that he had dissolved Parliament because he saw that public opinion was fgitated; that new questions had arisen; that the Government had been defeated in several constituencies, and that the people had a right to select a new government. His government was defeated and, mark this, Mr. Speaker, the opponents of the Government of England-here again the parallel is applicable-were at that moment of different persuasions, politically speaking. You had then the Irish Parliamentary party; you had the Radical party; you had the Labour party, and you had the old Liberal party, composed of men like the present Earl Grey, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Haldane, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, Lord Rosebery, and others. All the opponents of the Balfour administration, although divided amongst themselves on nonessentials, united their efforts against the government of the day, and victory for one was considered a victory for all. Whenever a Labour man was put up in a constituency, he was supported by the Liberals and the Radicals, and wherever a Liberal ran, he was supported by the Radicals and by Labour. The most important question at that time, as it is to-day, was whether or not the government had the con-121
fidence of the people. It seems to me it was exactly parellel to the present situation here. Whether we call ourselves Liberals or Farmers or Labour, when the majority opinion of the country as expressed in the various constituencies is against the government, as it has been consistently against the Government since 1917, I claim that an amendment of this nature is in order and the Government should take notice of it.
There is, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, a paramount reason why the present Parliament should dissolve. I say, Sir, in all seriousness that there has been no general election in this country since 1911-ten years ago. The last general election in Canada was held in that year, but it has not had the opportunity to do so since. That explains the unrest which exists throughout the country; it explains the revolt, the rumbles of which we hear in the various constituencies.
Let me review very briefly the circumstances under which the Canadian Parliament was dissolved in 1911. The question before the people at that time was the reciprocity pact with the United States. Reciprocity was not a new question. It was a very familiar issue to the people of Canada. It was familiar to our predecessors in 1854, in 1866 the year of the abrogation of the first treaty, in 1872, in 1875, in 1879, and in 1891, because in 1891 a general election was fought in Canada on the question of reciprocity. The Liberal party at that time advocated a full measure of reciprocity and the Conservative party a restricted offer of reciprocity with the United States. The Liberal party was practically victorious at the polls. At all events the majority of the government was not very large, and the Conservative administration could claim that they had received the support of the Canadian electorate in favor of a restricted offer of reciprocity. But be that as it may, in 1911 the question was hy no means a new one.
Yet, when my hon. friend the present member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and that old friend of ours, the late Mr. William Patterson, returned from Washington and presented the reciprocity pact to Parliament	immediatelyno, not immediately, because at first the Conservative party in the House of Commons gave a genuine support to the measure-but afterwards, there developed opposition to the measure and the Conservative party through its official mouthpiece, the leader of the Opposition, stated that an appeal should be had to the people



'COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
of Canada before the measure was voted on by Parliament. I remember that a motion was introduced in amendment by my friend the late Mr. Monk, then member for Jacques Cartier. His motion read that the question of reciprocity should not be voted on by the Canadian Parliament until the people had had a chance to pronounce upon it. His motion was supported by my hon. friend the present leader of the Government, and we know that later on there developed obstruction to the passage of that measure. It is interesting to remind the House of the frantic appeals which were made in respect to that measure brought in by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. Perfervid appeals were made to the province of Ontario in particular, by the general manager of the Conservative political campaigns of the day. Sir John Willison said:
The future is a sealed book which only the Gods may read, but at least the country should have time and opportunity to express it self. At least the constituencies may demand the right to pronounce the final judgment. It is intolerable that two party politicians, however able and trustworthy they may be, should settle the political destiny of Canada by a secret negotiation with a foreign country. Surely no Government has the right to impose upon the country, without consultation with the people a .policy which involves such momentous consequences, and surely if it persists every means of delay and obstructions should be employed to force dissolution of Parliament and to secure for Canadians the simple and incontestable right to determine their own commercial policy and their own political destiny.
So, Mr. Speaker, in order that the people might determine our policy at that time on a question which was not a new one, but dated back as far as 1854, the Conservative party, and some gentlemen who belonged to that House of 1911 are still in the House, obstructed the passage of the measure and forced the government to appeal to the country. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had been returned by a considerable majority of the votes in the election of 1908. However, he dissolved Parliament in 1911-mark the contrast between him and the present Prime Minister-Sir Wilfrid Laurier dissolved Parliament and was defeated on>
the 21st of September of that year, on two different issues; he was defeated on the issue of reciprocity, and defeated on the naval issue, and defeated above all by the whispering campaign. Here is the contrast between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. Here we have a Government elected for war purposes, and war purposes only. In 1908 you had a Govern-

ment possessing the full confidence, of the electorate of Canada, presenting a measure to Parliament on a question which was not new, but was as old as the oldest amongst us could remember.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, because this measure was, in the minds of the Tory party, a measure destined to fix the commercial future of Canada, they forced the issue; they obstructed the measure and brought about a dissolution. Mark the contrast. In the elections of 1917 we had an appeal that was epitomized in a very concrete slogan: "Win the War." The only object of the elections of 1917 was that of winning the war, and from the Prime Minister down to the humblest member in the Unionist party, that slogan was heralded throughout the country. It was said that the Government should be allowed to manage the public affairs of the country until the war had been won, and then the people could pronounce on the policies of both political parties.
After the defeat of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the Liberal party in 1911, the right hon. gentleman who now represents King's County, Nova Scotia (Sir Robert Borden) took office. With his Cabinet, he administered the public affairs of Canada until the year 1914, when we were suddenly awakened by news of the most stupendous war in history. That was the time, Mr. Speaker, to form a Union Government. Thus understood British statesmen; thus understood French statesmen; and so did the Premiers in Australia, in New Zealand, and in Newfoundland. Not so the Tory party in Canada.
The other day the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government (Hon. Mr. Meighen), taunting my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), said: "I do not understand why the leader of the Opposition is anxious to have an election to-day. In 1914 his party was most anxious that there should not be held any general election." How generous on the part of the Government not to have held an election in 1914! Sir, when the history of war events in Canada is written it will be surprising to know that at one moment the Tory Government, in the month of November, 1914, was ready to dissolve Parliament and to launch the country into a political contest, when already thousands and thousands of lives were being mowed down in Flanders' fields in Belgium.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, it was wise and patriotic on the part of the Liberal party to oppose any dissolution of Parliament. One might say that from that moment until 1917-and this is the point-1 wish to emphasize-from 1914 until 1917-Parliamentary, yes responsible Government was suspended in Canada. We had the War Measures Act; we had the extension of the Parliamentary term; we had the suspension of Habeas Corpus, one of the most sacred of all the liberties enjoyed by British subjects, if not, indeed, the most sacred of them. And finally we had the War Time Elections Act, the most iniquitous measure ever passed by any Parliament in any country. Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that in 1917, after the War Time Elections Act was passed by closure we had only the semblance of an election.
The election of 1917 was but a sham, and all over Canada, in at least eight of the nine provinces, it was an official debauchery. It has been stated by my hon. friend from Westmoreland (Mr. Copp) - and he brought affidavits to prove his assertions-that there are at least fourteen or fifteen members sitting in this House who were not regularly elected. Mr. Speaker, we know what took place. I was present at the Liberal Convention two years ago, and I heard an acquaintance of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, Mr. Adamson of Winnipeg, whose father and father-in-law both sat in this House of Commons, state to the Convention assembled,'on his word of honour, that two telegrams which I shall read to you had been sent during the campaign. He had the code and the key thereto, and he decoded the telegram to the Convention. On the 30th November, 1917, the following telegram was sent from the present Prime Minister to the late Prime Minister:
Would like one thousand soldier votes at large for Manitoba, of which 300 for Selkirk,, balance. divided between Provencher, Macdonald and Springfield or same proportion of division, no matter what our allotment maybe.
He read another telegram sent from Senator Sharpe to Senator Tanner, dated Winnipeg, December 4, 1917:

[Stage Direction]
Halifax, N. S.
W. J. Tupper received a telegram from your assistant secretary and in reply would say:	please allot all unattached' votes equally among the following constituencies; Pro-vencher, Springfield, and Selkirk, for the province of Manitoba, and in Saskatchewan, Saltcoats, North Battleford, Prince Albert,
Swift Current and Humboldt. This will assist us greatly.
W. H. Sharpe.
I know-I want to be fair-that the Prime Minister has mildly denied the paternity of his telegram addressed to Sir Robert Borden, the ex-Premier, but Senator Sharp never denied the authorship of the telegram which was addressed to Senator Tanner. All of us of the Liberal party, who hail from the province of Quebec do not know what took place in the other provinces except from what slips through the press or through the quarrels which occur to-day between the officials who were identified with that election, but we know what happened in our province. We know that for the county of Chambly-Vercheres 700 soldiers voted at St. John's. We know that Colonel Melville who was commanding at St. John's declared that he did not know where his domicile was, and for that reason voted himself in Chambly-Vercheres. You have only to present facts such as these and you have completely proven your case. Yes, Mr. Speaker, having sat in this House for a quarter of a century, having passed through several general elections, knowing the rough and tumble of a political contest, having read the history of the British Parliament and of British institutions, I have no hesitation in saying there were no elections really held in 1917, but that the elections of that year were nothing short of an official debauchery.	.
The salient fact through all the elections of 1917, or, if I may so speak, the raison d'etre of the Union Government, was the objective which I mentioned a ' moment ago-that is to say, winning the war was the only purpose. Is it necessary to prove that? Why, we have the evidence from the lips of one of the most astute members of the present Government. We have the evidence from the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Cal-der). On June 11, 1919, he said:
The present Government as originally constituted was not created for the purpose of making a general revision of the tariff. This Government was formed for war purposes and to carry out a war policy.
I find exactly the contrary in the speech from the Throne. There I read:
My advisers are convinced of the necessity for revision of the Customs Tariff. In order to secure the most complete information a committee has conducted an extensive and thorough inquiry, and has secured the views of all parties and interests in every province.
[Stage Direction]
Ybt the Minister of Immigration stated two years ago:
The present Government as originally constituted was not created for the purpose of making a general revision of the Tariff. This Government was formed for war purposes and to carry out a war policy.
Shall we believe the minister who uttered those words in 1919 or must we believe the minister who drafted the speech from the Throne? But my hon. friend said this further:
When the Government wa® constituted' it was composed of Liberals and Conservatives and the members composing the Government held1 strongly divergent views on the tariff question. What is true of members of the Government is equally true of members of the House on both sides. The members of this House /were not elected because of their tariff leanings. I do not wish to he personal but let me take one or two illustrations.
Then he takes the case of our esteemed friend the member for Macdonald (Mr. Henders) :
The hon. member for Macdonald was supported by all sections of the people in his constituency regardless of any ofpinions he held on the tariff because, I say again, the tariff was not an issue when he was elected a member of the House.
Then speaking of my genial friend the member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) he said:
Will any person say that the people of that constituency were at that time thinking of the tariff or of a general revision of the Tariff ? They were not. At that time the people were thinking of and voting on the issue that was before the country.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that this evidence coming from a member of the Government and knowing the circumstances that surrounded the last election, is sufficient to justify any fair-minded member in this House in voting in favour of the amendment, and to ask that in all sincerity, in all justice, the people of the country be called upon to pronounce between the Opposition and the Government.
I will admit, as I stated a moment ago that a union of both parties was a logical sequence of the declaration of the war; but what was logical during the war, and immediately after the war, is illogical to-day, and wd must strip of its disguises the Government which continues under a war agreement when we have reached peace. The master of the English language in the British Parliament is Mr. Asquith. It has been my privilege to listen to that great statesman on many occasions and I do not know in the English World a Parliamentarian who can marshal his phrases

in such beautiful order as the present leader of the Liberal party in England, Mr. Asquith. He made such an apt description of the coalition in England that I feel inclined to apply his burning sentences to the existing coalition in Canada. Here is what he said in the month of January last:
Now, let us turn for a very few moments nearer home. We see the same necessity for cleanout ideas and policies. The native atmosphere of the coalition is fog-fog which blears outlines and destroys perspectives. A combination of this kind, no longer justified by the supreme necessities of war, is driven to the task which, as the government of this country, is imposed upon it, or whieh it has imposed itself-it is driven, by the necessities of its being, to cater for at least two sets of opinions at the same time, and fhe inevitable result is a policy, if policy it can be properly called, of aviguities and compromises, or, of I may say so, of zigzag and see-saw.
That is an apt description of the present coalition of interests and appetites in this country, Mr. Speaker. It makes for ambiguities and compromises with two sets of opinions, as you saw last week. It makes also for a policy of zigzag and see-saw.
The supreme issue of the war has come to an end. The Government, of course, did not win the war, although they claim to have done so; the boys in the trenches won the war. There have been radical changes in the Cabinet; the Prime Minister selected by the people of Canada in 1911 has resigned; the Cabinet has been re-cast three or four times at least since 1911; the name of the party has been changed-and public opinion has also changed. Are we to be told Mr. Speaker, that a caucus which selects a Prime Minister, a leader of the party, shall be substituted for the will of the people and of Parliament? Are we to be told that bureaucracy shall take the place of free government in this young democracy?
Ah, I say to my hon. friends, the Progressives, the Farmers who sit alongside of me; This is the old, old 'issue between reaction and progress, between Liberalism and Toryism, because whatever be their name-Liberal, Conservative, National, we know that it is the same old Tory party. And this brings me to the distinction made by a famous English writer as between the Tory and the Liberal. Commenting on Gladstone's definition of the Liberal as the man who trusts the people, this writer said:
The Tory looks down from the institution to the man; the Liberal up from the man to the institution. The Liberal says. "The state is made for man, and not man for the

state"; the Tory reverses the dogma. Democratic government to the Liberal is an essential condition of the free growth of the individual soul; to the Tory, if he believes in it at all, it is a piece of efficient political machinery. The Tory' theory, in other words, is expensed in terms of duties, the Liberal in terms of rights.
And, Sir, it is a right that we are asserting to-day in moving this amendment. We assume the right of calling upon the Government to dissolve Parliament in order to give the people of Canada an opportunity of pronouncing as between the two political doctrines-an opportunity which has been denied since 1911.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is not only this question involved in the present amendment; there is, in my judgment, another paramount issue which justifies an appeal to the people. We are informed from all quarters that an Imperial Conference is to be convened for the mohth of June, that ministers from the various Dominions are to gather in London, and that they will he called upon to pronounce on the question of sharing the naval defence of the Empire. That is the declaration made by the Prime Minister of England. And we have also a declaration made, it is said, by Lord Milner, that the question of Home Rule for Egypt should also bring the Dominions together in order that they may be consulted on that most important policy. I leave aside this last question, because I cannot believe that we shall be involved in it, as we have nothing to do with Egypt. But the other declaration made by the Prime Minister of England, that the burden of naval defence had become too heavy for Great Britain, and that the Dominions should be called upon to share in that defence, creates at once, a rtiost important issue.
On many occasions the ex-Prime Minister, the right hon. gentleman from King's, N.S. (Sir Robert Borden) has declared, in England and in Canada, that our country should have a voice in the affairs of the Empire-that Canada should be consulted on the policy of the foreign office. It is true that, at the Imperial Conference, in 1911, Mr. Asquith, who was then Prime Minister of England, said that all this was a sham, that the Dominions could not share in framing the foreign policy of Great Britain.
Sir, if we should have a voice, if Canada should be called upon with British statesmen to decide the foreign policy of the Empire, you could see at once in what old world troubles we might be embroiled. As my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland)
stated so eloquently this afternoon, if Canada was called upon to pronounce on such a foreign policy, it would mean that there would be some sort of central authority in London where the Dominions would be represented according to population. Well, although I belong to the minority, and although I know that quite often we are denied the right and the privilege to speak on Imperial affairs because forsooth, we are supposed to be born rebels, yet I know, and I have enough regard for public opinion in [DOT] Canada, for public opinion in English-speaking Canada, to say that never, never, never shall Canada surrender her rights as a free self-governing commonwealth.
Canada is a self-governing dominion, will take part in the defence of the Empire or in the defence of Great Britain whenever Great Britain is on her trial; but Canada will do so of her own free will; there will never be any central authority in London to dictate a policy to Ottawa in that regard. If it is true that an Imperial Conference is to convene in the month of June to discuss the problem of the part Canada shall take in the naval defence of the Empire, I say that the question transcends all other issues and that the Government clearly has no mandate-to even discuss it! They have no mandate even to approach the issue; to take it up with Imperial statesmen and commit this House to a policy. I say that the Government should dissolve Parliament and ask the people by way of a referendum what is their will with regard to this grave question.
Any organic change in our constitution would be a serious departure, which should be specifically authorized by the people. This is a most vital issue, yet we are kept in the dark with regard to it. I suppose we shall be told in a few moments by' the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) that, as he said the other day in Montreal, "Canada is a nation." True, Mr. Speaker, we have a territory and we have a population, but as I understand the elements of international law there lacks an essential attribute:	Canada has no sovereignty.
But we are told by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) that Canada'is "a nation within the Empire" yet our status is not the same as that of Scotland, Wales, or Britain. I am eliminating .poor old Ireland, but I hope that the day is not far distant when Ireland shall have her share in the Government of Great Britain. Is our status equal to that of Britain, Scotland, Wales, even the Isle of
[Stage Direction]
Man? Mr. Speaker, if we are a nation within the Empire, what about the requisition of our ships during the war? Our ships were commandeered, I understand, owing to the emergency of the occasion, but what about the returning of those ships to Canada when the shipping interests of this country were clamouring after the armistice: "Give us back our ships. Do not send them from Liverpool to the extreme sections of the British Empire to help the merchants of Liverpool and of Glasgow. Return them to Canada."
We are "a nation within the Empire", and we pride ourselves upon that distinction; yet there is an embargo on our Canadian cattle, an embargo which rests on what Sir Charles Tupper stated was a lie. It is not true that Canadian cattle suffer from pleuro-pneumonia, but it is true that free-trade England wishes to protect the cattlemen and breeders of Scotland and the North of Ireland. We are "a nation within the Empire," but I remember that in 1911 when the Rainbow and the Niobe came to Halifax the Canadian Government received word from the British Admiralty that Canadian ships flying the King's colours and the Canadian ensign might not go beyond the three-mile limit lest they should create complications with some other power. I am sorry that the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) is not in his seat, but some time during the session I should like to know from him how it is that the present so-called Canadian navy is going round the world flying the British flag and the Canadian ensigh at the same time. By what process, through what channels, did we obtain in this year of Our Lord 1921 the privilege which was denied to the late CJoyernment in 1911?
The Minister of Trade and Commerce waxed eloquent the other day when he said that before Confederation Canada was bound first to the provinces, then to the other Dominions; and, as things progressed, as events emerged, Canada became bound to the Empire, and in a glorious peroration the Minister added:	"Now,
Canada is bound to the world." Noble words, Mr. Speaker; yet I read in the Gazette of February 4 that Canada was denied the right to conclude a commercial pact even with Nigeria and the Gold Coast. Here is what I read in the London correspondence of the Montreal Gazette of that date:
On inquiry at the Colonial Office by your correspondent, the information was vouch-

safed that negotiations had taken place directly between Canada and the Governments of the Gold Coast and Nigeria for preferential agreements somewhat similar to that now existing between Canada and the West Indies. It was soon discovered* however, that tne granting of such a preference was forbidden, in the case of the two African Governments, by the Anglo-French Convention referred to, and there the matter ended.
It appears that not only West Africa, but also East Africa, is thus hound, the bar in the latter case being the Berlin Convention, which prevented a proposed arrangement between a British colony there and Australia.
The statement of the Colonial Office, when asked whether the Anglo-French Convention could not be terminated, was that it would take about five years, in the event of the British Government being willing to make the effort, which would doubtless require a considerable amount of persuation. Canada and .the other Dominions have outgrown entanglements of this kind, but other parts of the Empire still find: themselves in the leading strings in which Britain's foreign policy of [DOT] former days has placed them.
I hope that if this matter is followed up by the Department of Tradt? and Commerce the right hon. gentleman who presides with such distinction over the affairs of that department will take a leaf out of the late Government's book so far as its trade policy is concerned. When British preference was voted by this Parliament in 1897, there were obstacles in the way, there were the German and Belgian treaties with Great Britain; but the Prime Minister of Canada went to England, where he pleaded the cause of Canada and the cause of the Mother Country, and the two treaties were denounced forthwith. To-day we are attempting to trade with Nigeria and the Gold Coast, and I hope the precedent of Belgium and of Germany will help the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Canada is a nation; but will the right Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) at least give us a hint as to when we shall have a right to appoint consular agents, or consuls, in the various countries of the world ?
Mr. DOHERTY:: When we shall need
them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My right hon. friend
has travelled of late. He went to Geneva; he went to Paris; and I have no doubt that he went to the various capitals of western Europe. He knows that, in every city of importance, the smallest country in the world, is represented by at least a consular agent who looks after the trade interests of that country. Where are the consular agents of Canada? And yet my right hon. friend will say: "Canada is a

nation." My right hon. friend says that we shall appoint consular agents when we shall need them. He will pardon me if I follow that expression. A few months ago the present Government was nearly defeated on the vote taken on the question of representation at Washington, the Government escaping defeat by five of a majority. The question was whether or not Canada should be represented at Washington by an ambassador or a semi-ambassador who, jointly with the British ambassador, would look after the interests of Canada, and in the case of the absence of the British ambassador would look after the affairs of the embassy at large. I make bold to say that the ink which signed the approval of Parliament was not dry when loud protests were made by the British ambassador at Washington and when louder protests were made by the colonial office and the foreign office in London, because a nation we may be, but still under the aegis of Downing Street. The Canadian ambassador has not yet been appointed, and I dare say that he will not be appointed. Will my right hon. friend state to-night if that ambassador will be appointed? He will not be appointed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will state this, that it is no loud protest from anybody outside of Canada that has anything to do with the question whether he will be appointed or not. My hon. friend said that he would make bold to make the statement. He certainly carried the boldness to the extreme of making a statement entirely devoid of foundation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My right hon. friend
evades the issue. He will not say if the ambassador will be named, and I make bold to say once more that he will not be appointed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will also say, as I
am accused of evasion, that he will be named just as soon as Canada decides who is to be named.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This question was
mooted, not last year, but three years ago, and I think this is the third time we have voted the money necessary to maintain a Canadian ambassador at Washington. It is very easy for my right hon. friend, in answer to my question, to say that he will be appointed just as soon as we decide who shall be appointed;! but if you never decide, no one will ever be appointed. I have no warrant to say that, but my knowledge of British traditions and my com-10 p.m. mon sense dictate the answer I gave a moment ago to my right
hon. friend. I say that Great Britain, through the foreign office in London, will never allow the Canadian Government to appoint a dual ambassador at Washington, and why should the foreign office give Canada, which has no sovereignty, the right to discuss with the United States the interests of Great Britain at large? Aye, if you were to appoint a High Commissioner like the one you have in London or the one you have in Paris, the case would be quite different, and I have already stated in the House and several others on this side also stated that they would see with pleasure, indeed, the appointment of a Canadian, of a man of substance who knows Canada, who is familiar with her trade interests and Canadian affairs generally, to Washington, where we have so many problems to discuss and to settle. That, I would approve most heartily but again I repeat to my right hon. friend that it is no more necessary to have two ambassadors in the British Embassy at Washington than it is necessary to have two ministers sitting in the Department of Justice. What would my right hon. friend say if, for instance, the province of Quebec or the province of Manitoba were to insist on the Government having alongside my right hon. friend in the department over which he presides, I must say, with grace and ability, a jurist, a lawyer from either of their respective provinces to assist him in his task? My right hon. friend would protest. Would he resign? I think he would.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The case is as absurd as that. More than that, it would be a very strange position for Canada to be in. When the British Ambassador was in Washington discussing highly confidential questions with the American Secretary of State, how would he like to have a third party intervene?' It would lead to endless embroilments and endless quarrels between Canada and the Mother Country. I say that in the best interests of Canada and the Mother Country the appointment of a Canadian ambassador to Washington is not to-be desired. But, really, we need waste no time in discussing the desirability of having one, for he will never be appointed.
The object of Mr. Amery's visit last summer was very easy to divine, and there has appeared enough in the press of Great Britain and enough has been hinted on the floor of the House at Westminster to dispose of the question forever. But I say

the policy of every true Canadian statesman, and I hope they will be adopted by the leader of the Government. At all events I know that they will ever be the watchwords of the Liberal party.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker at;this hour of the evening I hardly feel that I can fairly undertake to follow the hon. gentleman over the vast extent of territory that he has covered in treating the numerous questions with which he has dealt. I very much regret that I shall not be able to take the matter up at this moment, and I must necessarily, in consequence, leave him to be haunted through this night by those terrible nightmares in which he sees with terrible dread, a centralized authority grasping Canada and also sees this country standing out as a nation. The hon. gentleman has a most awful dread of Canada being a nation. I am sorry for that, but I feel I will he able to do something, at all events, to carry conviction to him that that is the fact, and perhaps something to modify the terrors that, in his mind, surround that position. I hope to be able to do that, but I fear that at this hour I shall have to postpone the task until to-morrow, and so I can only wish him the pleasantest dreams a man so obsessed may have, and beg to move, Mr. Speaker, the adjournment of the Debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On the Motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty for the adjournment of the House.
Mr. FIELDING:: Before the House adjourns I have a suggestion or a request to make to the Minister of Justice. In view of the several important speeches that have been made, and the immediate prospect of the making of others, touching the League of Nations, I think it is most desirable that the House should be in possession of further information with regard to the appointment of the delegates who attended the Geneva Conference. My suggestion, therefore, is that without waiting for a formal motion, which could only come at a later stage, my right hon. friend should bring down immediately the Orders in Council and instructions respecting the appointment of the delegates. We would then have a clear conception of the matter.
I think it would be better that my right hon. friend should do that now and not wait until a motion for these papers is placed on the Order Paper. I hope that my rt. hon. friend will be able to do as I suggest.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At the present moment I see no objection to its being done, and I will bear the request in mind.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 10.30. p.m.
Tuesday, February 22, 1921